Beyond FencesEdited by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend with Dianne Buchan. Acknowledgments This...

Beyond Fences

Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this document are entirely those of the authors and shouldnot be attributed in any manner to the 1UCN and the partner organisations in this project. The designation ofgeographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of 1UCN or other participating organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory,or area,or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the GTZ Protected Area Management Project.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

First published 1997Reprinted 2000

Copyright: © 1997 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, BSP,The World Bank, WWF US, PVO-NGO NMRS Project, CIFOR and Intercooperation.

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes isauthorized without the prior written permission from the copyright holders provided thesource is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation:

ISBN:

Borrini-Feyerabend, G.with Buchan, D. (ed.), 1997. Beyond Fences: Seeking SocialSustainability in Conservation. Vol. 1. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.v+ 129 pp.

2-8317-0340-9

Cover design anddrawings:

Fabrizio Prati

Layout and design:

Printed by:

Available from:

Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and Patricia Halladay

Rosette Printers, Karachi, Pakistan

IUCNPublications Services Unit219c Huntingdon RoadCambridge CB3 0DLUnited KingdomTel: + 44 1223 277894Fax:+44 1223 277175E-mail: [email protected]/bookstore/index.html

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available

Beyond FencesSeeking Social Sustainabilityin Conservation

VOLUME 1:

A Process Companion

Edited by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabendwith Dianne Buchan

Acknowledgments

This publication is the result of a collaborative exercise and incorporatescontributions from more than 100 people from over 20 countries. Thenames of these people and the roles they played are listed in the Con-tributors sections at the end of Volumes 1 and 2. The Biodiversity Sup-port Program, the Social Policy and Resettlement Division of the WorldBank, the PVO-NGO-NRMSproject, the World Wildlife Fund-US,CIFOR and Intercooperation provided financial support to IUCN forimplementing the project, and staff from these organizations — JanisAlcorn, Michael Brown, Gloria Davis, John Krijnen, Patricia Larson,Kathleen McPhail, and Eva Wollenberg — contributed ideas, contacts,and written materials to the editor and IUCN project manager —Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend — throughout the process. The IUCN SocialPolicy Group was able to manage the process thanks to the sponsorshipof the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), which isgratefully acknowledged.

The project began with discussions between BSP and IUCN in mid-1994, which later involved other institutions interested in participatingin a joint undertaking. The project was officially launched with profes-sional staff from the sponsoring agencies establishing the Project Coor-dination Committee, which guided the project throughout, and with aworkshop at IUCN headquarters in December 1994. On the basis of theworkshop's results, the editor conceived the original design of organizingthe work around key questions — focusing on processes and offeringexamples rather than creating a definitive book of answers — andproduced a draft volume in the spring of 1995.

In the following months, the draft was reviewed by members of theProject Coordinating Committee and by many field-based professionalsaround the world, all of whom provided general and specific feedback.In particular, input was sought and received on the "options for action"and on experiences and examples that could illustrate their relevantbenefits and drawbacks. The examples received are now listed in Volume2, and the general input and comments have been incorporated through-out the text of the two volumes. Dianne Buchan, a consultant with theIUCN Social Policy Group, was in charge of much of this work.

While developing the first volume, a number of terms and conceptsdeserving some detailed illustration were identified. In the fall of 1995,experts on the relevant subjects were contacted and asked to write shortpapers on those topics, now included in the book as "concept files". Thesewere further supplemented by a section on participatory tools andprocesses written by the editor and Dianne Buchan from their ownpersonal experiences, existing literature and contributions received. InMarch 1996, the Project Coordinating Committee reviewed progress andprovided further input to both volumes. A revised version was distrib-uted to several independent reviewers in the summer of 1996. Theircomments were integrated and further suggestions from the Coordinat-

ing Committee were added up to January 1997. The kindness andflexibility of Fabrizio Prati, illustrator, Patricia Halladay, designer, andSusan Broomfield, chief SPG secretary, were invaluable in the process.

The editor designed the structure and wrote some of the original drafttexts, later commented upon by contributors. Other original drafts werewritten by members of the Coordinating Committee and later edited atIUCN. Sections without named authors are thus all a joint product' ofvarious contributors and the editor.

I am sincerely grateful to all the people who contributed to BeyondFences for their generous and inspiring insights, their responsiveness toquestions and their readiness to debate. Personally, I wish to dedicatethis work to Tata, a woman who never learned to read or write, and yetknew extremely well how to deal with people, animals, plants and theland. May she inspire the users of these volumes to go beyond the writtenwords.

Grazia Borrini-FeyerabendGland, Switzerland, February 1997

Introduction

Why these resource books? 1

What will the books provide? 1

What will the books not provide? 2

Who are the books for? 2

What is a "conservation initiative"? 2

Using the resource books 3

Seeking social sustainability 11

Section 1: Involving the people

1.1 Involving the people 20

1.2 Key questions 22

1.3 Indicators of participation 32

1.4 Options for action 34

Section 2: Addressing local needs in conservation

2.1 Addressing local needs in conservation 56


2.3 Indicators of local needs being addressed 68


Section 3: Managing a sustainable initiative

3.1 Managing a sustainable initiative 94


3.3 Indicators of sustainable internal management 102


General References 118

Contributors 125

Contents

Volume 1

i

Contents

Volume 2

Section 4:Concept files

4.1 Social actors and stakeholders 3

4.2 Indigenous resource management systems 8

4.3 Local institutions for resource management 14

4.4 Population dynamics and conservation 17

4.5 Gender concerns in conservation 22

4.6 Participation in conservation: why, what, when, how? 26

4.7 Equity in conservation 32

4.8 Applied ethics in conservation 35

4.9 Biodiversity and rural livelihood 38

4.10 Local knowledge in conservation 41

4.11 Indigenous peoples and protected areas 44

4.12 Social concerns in population resettlement 50

4.13 Poverty, wealth and environmental degradation 55

4.14 Common property, communal property and

open access regimes 59

4.15 Conflicts in conservation 62

4.16 Collaborative management for conservation 65

4.17 Governance and the rule of law 68

4.18 Decentralizing and devolving government 70

4.19 Primary environmental care 74

4.20 Sustainable use of wildlife 79

4.21 Sustainable farming, forestry and fishing practices 82

4.22 Ecotourism 86

4.23 Compensation and substitution programmes 91

4.24 Jobs in conservation 94

4.25 Economic valuation in conservation 96

4.26 Incentives and disincentives to conservation 100

4.27 A project or a process? 103

4.28 Management styles 107

4.29 Cross-cultural communication and local media 111

4.30 Social sustainability 115

ii

Section 5: Participatory tools and processes

5.1 Social Communication 121

5.1.1 Community and public meetings 122

5.1.2 Audio-visual presentations 124

5.1.3 Picture stories (flip charts and flannel boards) 126

5.1.4 Street or village theatre 128

5.1.5 Radio programmes 129

5.2 Information gathering and assessment 130

5.2.1 Natural group interviews 131

5.2.2 Focus group interviews 132

5.2.3 Semi-structured interviews with key informants 134

5.2.4 Photo appraisal and slide language 135

5.2.5 Observational walks and transect diagrams 136

5.2.6 Trend analysis 137

5.2.7 Land-use mapping 138

5.2.8 Historical mapping 139

5.2.9 Seasonal calendars 140

5.2.10 Gender analysis 141

5.3 Planning 143

5.3.1 Group brainstorming 144

5.3.2 Guided imagery 145

5.3.3 Problem and solution mapping 147

5.3.4 Nominal group technique 148

5.3.5 Ranking exercises 150

5.4 Conflict management 152

5.4.1 A process for negotiation/mediation 153

5.5 Monitoring and evaluation 157

5.5.1 Stakeholder accounts 158

5.5.2 Community involvement to plan the evaluation 160

5.5.3 Community-based environmental assessment 162

5.5.4 SWOL analysis 163

5.6 References and further readings 165

iii

Section 6: Examples from the field

Identifying stakeholders and informing them about theconservation initiative

6.1 Inventory of actual/potential stakeholders 171

6.2 Stakeholder analysis 173

6.3 Information campaign 174

6.4 Public relations service 176

6.5 Environmental discussion sessions 177

Building on the capacities of stakeholders and developing long-term relationships among them and the conservation initiative

6.6 Promoting internal discussion within each

stakeholder group 180

6.7 Helping stakeholders organize 182

6.8 Meetings and workshops to build bridges among

stakeholders 185

6.9 Visits to similar initiatives 186

6.10 Strengthening local institutions for resource management.. 188

6.11 Conservation Councils 189

6.12 Institution for conflict management 191

6.13 Training and incentives for staff 192

6.14 Promoting an effective legal basis for participation 194

Involving the stakeholders in the management of theconservation initiative

6.15 Assisting local communities to develop their own

conservation initatives 195

6.16 Participatory appraisal and planning 198

6.17 Collaborative management agreement 203

6.18 Collaborative management institution 207

6.19 Devolving the initiative to local institutions 210

6.20 Participatory monitoring and evaluation 212

Understanding local management systems, local claims, needsand potential conservation impacts

6.21 Review of indigenous/customary systems 213

6.22 Participatory review of customary claims 215

6.23 Review of national policies and laws 216

6.24 Assessment of local uses of natural resources 219

6.25 Social impact assessment (SIA) 223

iv

Planning to integrate conservation and the meeting of localneeds

6.26 Open meetings among stakeholders 225

6.27 Special events and 'ideas fairs' 227

6.28 Visits to successful initiatives 229

6.29 Building upon local knowledge and skills 231

6.30 Participatory planning to integrate local needs 233

6.31 Zoning to separate incompatible land uses 236

Generating benefits for local stakeholders

6.32 Primary environmental care (PEC) projects 238

6.33 Jobs for local people 242

6.34 Local distribution of revenues 244

6.35 Compensation and substitution programmes 246

Enhancing the sustainability of benefits to stakeholders

6.36 Financial feasibility studies 248

6.37 Linking benefits with efforts in conservation 250

6.38 Supportive links with relevant services 251

6.39 Monitoring land tenure and land values 254

6.40 Incentives to conservation accountability 254

6.41 Biodiversity monitoring and surveillance by local people 256

6.42 Integrating initiatives with local empowerment 258

Improving internal relationships among staff and buildingupon their commitment and capacities

6.43 Staff review of internal management issues 259

6.44 Regular staff meetings 260

6.45 On-the-job capacity building 260

6.46 Decentralizing decision-making 262

6.47 Reviewing the initiative for timing and flexibility 264

Improving relationships among staff and local stakeholders

6.48 Hiring staff from the local area 264

6.49 Staff visits to the field operations 267

6.50 Cultural presentations for the staff of the initiative 267

6.51 Integrating local culture and traditions 269

Sustaining the relationship between the conservation initiativeand local stakeholders

6.52 Extraordinary staff and stakeholder meetings 271

6.53 Ongoing communication programme 272

6.54 Monitoring change in local communities 273

6.55 Networking with local leaders and opinion-makers 274

References 276

Contributors 279

V

Introduction

Natural resources are managed (or mismanaged) by people: individuals,families, groups, communities, associations, businesses and govern-ments. To find out why an environment thrives or is exploited in adestructive way, find out about the people affecting it. Are they resi-dents, regular transients, or one-time users of natural resources? Howlong have they been in the area? Are major changes happening in theirsocieties? Do they feel a need to conserve their environment and re-sources? Do they know how to take care of them? Do they have theskills and means to do it? Do they get the support they need? Are therespecific institutions in charge of managing the resources? Are therelaws and rules about management? How many people use the re-sources? How healthy and wealthy are they? How secure do they feel?How do they share decisions and responsibilities? How do they dealwith conflicting interests, in particular between local and externalforces?

Even in specific conservation initiatives, such as the management of aprotected area, it is very rare for the professionals in charge to be fullyin control. In most cases, their interaction with society at large, andwith local people in particular, is basic and inevitable. A variety ofsocial actors and stakeholders shapes the legal, institutional, politicaland economic realities that affect the use of resources and the valuesassigned to them. Residents of local communities, in particular, possessprecious knowledge and capacities, yet are too often ignored or humili-ated in management processes. No wonder they become hostile toconservation initiatives that do not recognize their claims, and damagetheir interests.

There is little doubt that dealing with social concerns, particularlythose of local communities, is essential for the success of conservationinitiatives. Some governments and agencies express this by saying thatthere is a need to assure the social sustainability of such initiatives. Inthis sense, social sustainability depends on addressing the social,economic and cultural needs of the local communities — and stakehold-ers in general — affected by a conservation initiative, and on assuringthe conditions (e.g., finances, technology, political authority and socialorganization and consensus) to maintain the conservation practicesestablished.

How do we address such concerns? How do we make a conservationinitiative socially sustainable? It is an assumption of our work that thiscannot be done by experts in isolated offices, but requires the activeparticipation of the stakeholders themselves — including the residentsof local communities, often the least powerful and organized of them all.These resource books are designed to support a process by which suchparticipation is achieved, a 'learning-by-doing' experience in whichlessons are put into practice and people, together, find out what 'works'in their particular context.

Why theseresourcebooks?

1

Beyond Fences: Volume 1

What will thebooks provide?

These two volumes are designed to help professionals employed inconservation initiatives to identify the social concerns that are relevantfor their work, assess options for action and implement the options bestsuited to their context.

The first volume is a companion to a process — an experience of 'learn-ing-by-doing' expected to involve a series of meetings and field-basedactivities. The process may be carried out for the purpose of planning,evaluating or redesigning a conservation initiative.

The second volume contains a variety of reference material to be con-sulted, as needed, at various stages in the process.

What will thebooks notprovide?

These resource books are not intended to offer 'the answers' to socialconcerns in conservation. They do not provide step-by-step instructionsnor an all-purpose questionnaire. The questions, indicators and optionsfor action listed in Volume 1 (the process companion) are not relevant inall contexts, and users will certainly think of more. The concept files,participatory tools and processes and examples provided in Volume 2(the reference book) are offered as food for thought and do not consti-tute an exhaustive treatment of any subject.

Who are thebooks for?

Beyond Fences is written for professionals working in a conservationinitiative. In the case of a protected area or state reserve, this usuallymeans staff of national and local governments and agencies. In the caseof a supporting project or programme, this may mean employees of anon-governmental organization (NGO), an aid agency or an interna-tional body. Thus, these resource books are for governmental or non-governmental staff, as well as for national or expatriate professionals.In particular, they address the managers of conservation initiatives andthe professionals who interact with people and organized groups on aregular basis.

Beyond Fences can also be of help to professionals who are not field-based, but still involved in planning, financing and evaluating initia-tives, and to various individuals and groups involved in conservation.Finally, it can be of utility in training environments for conservationprofessionals.

2

Introduction

As a working definition employed in Beyond Fences, a conservationinitiative is any medium- to long-term set of activities to maintain andprotect natural environments and the quality of their biological diver-sity. In this sense, examples of a conservation initiative are the ongoingmanagement of a protected area, the management of a territory underreserve status, or the management of a valuable ecosystem or species.All these may and usually do include forms of sustainable use of re-sources. Examples are also fixed-term projects or programmes provid-ing support to the actors in charge of the above.

A conservation initiative generally applies to a territory with definedboundaries, and responsibility for its management is generally assignedto a specific institution. Besides such boundaries, however (e.g., theboundaries of a park), an initiative always has a broader area of influ-ence. This area covers the territories where people are dependent —i.e., for food and income — on the natural resources the initiative aimsto conserve. Sometimes these territories are referred to as "bufferzones". The area of influence also applies to the territories whereeconomic or other types of human activities affect the resources to beconserved.

Given the work orientation of many of the individuals and institutionsthat developed Beyond Fences and are expected to use it, we will mostlydeal with conservation initiatives in countries of the South (so-calleddeveloping countries).

what is a"conservationinitiative"?

Beyond Fences is not meant to be read from cover to cover. The firstvolume is a companion to a process, and is meant to be used followingthe requirements of the process itself. It is not a guide and does notspell out step-by-step procedures. The second is a reference book, to beconsulted on specific items as needs arise.

The volumes can be used by individuals, but they have really beendesigned for a team of professionals working together in a conservationinitiative. The team should ideally include key managers as well as thestaff responsible for the interaction with local people and organizedgroups. The resource books could be used by such a team at the begin-ning of an initiative as an aid to assess options and plan activities butthey could also be helpful at later stages. In particular they could sup-port various types of review, help to re-focus and redirect activities, andprovide ideas to solve problems rooted in social issues. They could alsoserve as a basis for training personnel on social concerns in conserva-tion.

We recommend that the team members who will use the books (let uscall them the "professional team") familiarize themselves with thebooks' contents before doing anything else.

Volume 1 begins with some questions and answers on what the booksare all about (you are reading that part right now). A brief introduction,entitled "Seeking social sustainability", discusses the reasons socialconcerns are important for a conservation initiative. The followingthree main sections address three such concerns: "Involving the peo-ple"; "Addressing local needs in conservation"; and "Managing a sus-tainable initiative". These three topics were identified by professionalswith expertise in biological and social sciences and conservation prac-

Using theresource books

3


tice. They do not cover everything that is important about people andconservation, nor are they completely independent of each other. Yet,they group some major concerns and lessons on what motivates peopleto act for conservation, and what helps them succeed.

Volume 2 is also composed of three main sections. The first section,"Concept files", contains concise essays that illustrate key terms,concepts and considerations on particular conservation issues. Thesecond section, "Participatory tools and processes", is useful for conser-vation professionals who wish to communicate with local people andinvolve them in gathering information, assessing problems and oppor-tunities, planning activities, managing conflicts and monitoring andevaluating results. The third section is an extensive collection of briefexamples from the field, offering lessons learned in conservation initia-tives that seized or missed opportunities to take action on social con-cerns. This last section is closely linked to Volume 1, as it offers exam-ples of what happens when the options for action listed in Volume 1 areactually put into practice or ignored.

Before we enter into specific suggestions on how to use the resourcebooks, we also need to stress that they do not provide any generalstructure or framework to plan or review a conservation initiative.First, such a framework would need to include many more considera-tions than social concerns (e.g., matters of geopolitical opportunity orfinancial feasibility) which are well beyond the scope of this work.Second, specific frameworks are established and required practice formost institutions in charge of conservation initiatives (governmentalagencies, aid agencies, NGOs) and each organization has its own guide-lines and specific procedures. There is little value in trying to provide ageneric model here. Third, and perhaps most important, even theorganizations that in the past relied heavily on "project cycle" ap-proaches are now exploring more flexible and loose alternatives(Cernea, 1996). The World Bank, for instance, is currently reassessingits procedures — from site identification to evaluation of activities —and discussing alternative modes of operation. The key verbs are now"listening", "confirming hypotheses", "exploring alternatives" and"learning-by-doing". The good judgement of staff and flexible, ongoinginteraction with various social actors — not the strict application ofrules and procedures — are beginning to be seen as central to thesuccess of an initiative (Picciotto and Weaving, 1994).

How, then, can these resource books be used? The easy answer is thatthey should be used to support and complement whatever process theprofessional team in charge of the conservation initiative is alreadyfollowing — to plan, review, carry out training or evaluate its own work.The books can provide checklists and aide memoires, research questionsand methods, ideas for activities to be tried out, themes for discussionin training sessions, possible indicators for monitoring and surveillance,and so on. They are not designed to 'guide' you to do anything, butinstead offer for your attention and stimulate you to consider anddiscuss a wide menu of items and options (see Table 1).

Let us try to clarify this with more information on the content of Vol-ume 1. Each of the three main sections of Volume 1 is structured in thesame way. First, a series of key questions (and sub-questions) is intro-duced. These are meant to stimulate the professional team to discussthree sets of social concerns (i.e., participation, local needs and internalmanagement) in the context of their particular initiative. The specific

4

Introduction

questions may be more or less relevant in different environments. Yet, ateam that would meet around a table (or under a tree), answer thequestions and discuss the answers, would explore much of what isimportant to know about those concerns in their specific context.

Not all the terms, concepts or issues will be familiar to everyone in theteam. In that case, the concept files listed in Volume 2 may be useful;they are cross-referenced in Volume 1. You may want to take a look atthose files if you are sufficiently intrigued or stimulated by some of thequestions. It may also happen that some people in the team disagree onpossible answers to a question. It is useful to acknowledge this early on,since people generally take for granted that others share their viewsand may end up discovering that this is not the case when it is too lateto remedy. Most crucial, you may find out that you do not know theanswers to some important questions. What could you do in that case?

Process

Identify and discussthe social concernsrelevant for the con-servation initiative

If matters are not allclear and more infor-mation is needed,collect more

Discuss the supple-mentary informationand compare the rela-tive effectiveness, ap-propriateness to con-text, and feasibility ofdifferent options foraction; plan how to in-corporate the selectedoptions in the conser-vation initiative

Take action on socialconcerns by imple-menting the selectedoptions as part of theconservation initia-tive; monitor and re-view the activities onan ongoing basis

Process companion(Volume 1)

Introductions andKey Questions(Sections 1.1; 1.2;2.1; 2.2; 3.1; 3.2)

Indicators andwarning flags(Sections 1.3; 2.3;3.3)

Options for action(Sections 1.4; 2.4;3.4)

Reference book(Volume 2)

Concept files(Section 4)

Participatory toolsand processes forinformation gather-ing and assessment(Section 5.2)

Examples from thefield (Section 6)

Participatory toolsand processes forsocial communication, planning andconflict management(Sections 5.1; 5.3;5.4)

Participatory toolsand processes formonitoring andevaluation(Section 5.5)

Table 1How to use theresource books(summary)

5

''

'


You may want to read further along in Volume 1, where indicators andwarning flags are listed for each set of concerns, and in Volume 2,where participatory tools and processes are illustrated. Finding outabout social indicators and warning flags in a participatory way, di-rectly involving the people you are dealing with, is an excellent way ofboth gathering information and improving social relations with theconservation initiative.

Once you are satisfied with answering questions and discussing par-ticular social concerns, you may want to explore what can be doneabout them. Each section in Volume 1 moves from questions to indica-tors to options for action. The options are activities that respond toparticular needs and could be incorporated in the plan of action of theconservation initiative. It is important to stress that not all options areappropriate in all contexts, and that several of those listed are, in fact,alternative choices. All options should be evaluated on a case-by-casebasis, and especially in terms of the assumptions they hold true (implic-itly or explicitly), the trade-offs they require and their feasibility in thelocal context.

When you have identified an option as potentially appropriate, you maywant to find out more about it by reading about some examples fromthe field where the option has been utilized or ignored. Section 6 ofVolume 2 encompasses a range of such examples, cross-referenced toVolume 1. In some cases, the reader is also referred to concept files andparticipatory tools and processes in Volume 2.

The three main sections in Volume 1 can be explored in any order. Theycan simply complement — in total or in part — the process of planning,review, evaluation or training that may be taking place in the conserva-tion initiative. If the team members are designing a monitoring pro-gramme, for instance, they may first want to consider the three sets ofindicators and warning flags included in Volume 1 and the methods andtools in Section 5.5. If they are having a refresher training session theymay hold some meetings to discuss one or more key questions listed inVolume 1, or concept files from Volume 2. If the initiative is plagued byconflicts or missed opportunities, the team may wish to identify alter-natives by reviewing the options for action listed in Volume 1 and therelevant examples from the field in Volume 2. If the initiative is beingplanned from scratch, the team may want to explore all the questionsand options listed in Volume 1 and put to use the participatory methodsand tools illustrated in Volume 2 to involve local people in the assess-ment and planning itself (see Table 1). Some concrete examples mayhelp you visualize how something like this could work out in practice.

Community-basedresoyrce managementin Central Africa

An integrated conservation and development project is being planned inDense Forest in Bangassou in the Central African Republic (Telesis,1996). UNDP and USAID are funding the design of the project, withtechnical support from the World Wildlife Fund and the Private Volun-tary Organizations and Non-governmental Organizations in NaturalResources Management (PVO-NGO/NRMS) Project. The goal of theproject is to enable the local people to manage their renewable re-sources in a sustainable way, and the project has to figure out how best

6

Introduction

could this be achieved, with particular attention to the policy environ-ment, the local economy, and the existing knowledge, skills and institu-tions for the management of natural resources. The region encompassesprimary and secondary forests at various stages of regeneration. Itpossesses significant species richness, including populations of largemammals fleeing intense hunting pressures in the Sudan. The region isvery remote, with a small population and chronic economic stagnation.

The project is being designed on the basis of various hypotheses, includ-ing the following:• that a reform of tenure laws and practices is a precondition for

reversing destructive land uses;• that the diversification of local employment can reduce pressures

on threatened natural resources; and• that local communities can effectively take control of local envi-

ronmental management and conservation activities.

Project management is expected to be minimal, and most planning andmanagement decisions are to be carried out by local communities.

The 'minimal' professional team working for this project could make useof the resource set in several ways. Since local participation is a crucialcomponent of the project, they could first review Section 1 of Volume 1as an aid to reflect upon the existing social reality and to identify whichactivities can be planned, and in what order. They could also reviewsome concept files of particular concern to them, e.g., "Indigenousresource management systems", "Local institutions for resource man-agement", "Social actors and stakeholders", "Decentralizing and devolv-ing government", "Local knowledge in conservation" and "Cross-culturalcommunication and local media".

Once they have outlined a plan to involve the communities in theinitiative, they could consider using some of the participatory methodsand tools listed in Section 5 and developing a monitoring system thatincludes collecting data on some of the indicators listed in Section 1. Asthey progress, they may find that it becomes more and more importantto assure that conservation and the meeting of local needs are pursuedthrough the same activities. Section 2 of Volume 1 may then help byoffering more ideas to be considered and discussed with the local peo-ple. In the discussions, the examples of Section 6 may be recalled, sothat lessons learned in past successes and failures are shared andtaken in.

Finally, some problems may at one time or another surface between the'minimal' professional staff and the local people, or within the staffitself. It may then be the moment to review what Section 3 of Volume 1has to offer, and possibly review the project management process onthat basis.

The World Bank has been asked to back up some major financial invest-ments in the Lao People's Republic that would provide infrastructurework (damming an important watershed for the production of hydro-electric power). The artificial lake to be created would flood an area ofrich biodiversity and deprive a number of local indigenous communitiesof their land and means of livelihood. Prior to making a decision on thematter, the Bank has commissioned an in-depth study of environmentaland social impact. This is expected to be the basis of a plan for mitiga-

Mitigation measures inLao People's Republic

7


tion measures that would provide maximum protection for the integrityof local biodiversity and the interests of the local people. Short of scrap-ping the project plan — which seems highly unlikely in the currentpolitical context in Lao — the mitigation measures may help minimizeecological damages and assure that people affected are equitablytreated and compensated.

In this context, Beyond Fences may help to provide for the social sus-tainability of any mitigation plan that may be initially developed. If, forinstance, the plan foresees relocation and compensation for the affectedpeople, team members may find useful insight in various concept files(e.g., "Social concerns in resettlement programmes", "Equity in conser-vation", "Compensation and substitution programmes", "Cross-culturalcommunication and local media", "Poverty, wealth and environmentaldegradation", "Population dynamics and conservation") and a series ofideas for local investments to link environmental conservation and locallivelihood in Section 2 of Volume 1. As for the Central African case, theparticipatory methods and tools illustrated in Volume 2 may helpinvolving the local communities in the planning of the mitigationactivities.

Conserving LakeVictoria

The IUCN Office in Eastern Africa developed a project proposal for theconservation of natural resources in Lake Victoria (IUCN, 1996). Thisfollowed the rapid development of the fishing export industry, whichhad adversely affected the lake's environmental quality and biodiver-sity. The project seeks to promote sustainable use of the lake's resourcesand to examine how the interests of the traditional fisheries can bereconciled with those of the export-oriented fisheries. A preliminaryanalysis identified and analyzed a range of local stakeholders, includingthose directly linked with the industry, such as local fishermen, fish-mongers, fish processors, local communities in general (as consumersand employees) and local NGOs. The challenge ahead is for the stake-holders to be fully engaged in planning and implementing activitiesthat will lead to the effective conservation of the integrity and biodiver-sity of Lake Victoria's ecosystem and resources. The professional teamin charge of the initiative is expected to be relatively large and mayhave to include representatives from several countries. It may becomeeven larger as the team interacts with the numerous stakeholders who— following the explicit strategy of the programme — should be em-powered to take action for the conservation of their environment.

How could the staff of the Lake Victoria conservation project make useof Beyond Fences? There are various ways. First of all, they may wish touse all they can find in the books to help them identify and contactstakeholders (e.g., the questions and options in Section 1). They maythen direct their attention to developing resource management agree-ments involving the stakeholders: a matter that is still poorly docu-mented in development and conservation literature to date.

Section 1 of Volume 1 contains several checklists to help review rele-vant information and numerous options for action that lead to manage-ment agreements, conflict resolution among stakeholders and — possi-bly — local institutions taking charge of management decisions in thelong run. In Volume 2, more ideas and references on the subjects can befound in various concept files ("Conflicts in conservation", "Collabora-tive management regimes", "Equity in conservation", "Sustainablefarming, forestry and fishing practices", "Incentives and disincentives

8

Introduction

to conservation", etc.), in Section 5 (Participatory tools and processes forplanning and managing conflicts) and Section 6 (Examples from theField).

The Lake Victoria programme specifies that staff of national institu-tions for resource management will be trained to interact effectivelywith local stakeholders and to involve them in conservation activities.Beyond Fences can also be used to support this component. If a prob-lem-based (not a lecture-type) methodology is adopted, trainees shouldfirst identify some of the problems they have encountered in theirinteractions with various groups of stakeholders (fisherpeople, thoseemployed in transportation and local industries, fish vendors, etc.).They could then go through the two resource books to identify whatthey could do to meet these challenges. They could, for instance, picksome options for action, discuss them in their work groups and takenotes about the discussions. After training, the resource books wouldremain both a useful reminder of discussions and a collection of ideas.

PROBONA is a joint initiative of the Swiss NGO Intercooperation andthe IUCN office for South America (SUR). The project is concerned withthe conservation of native forests in the Andean region. It includes areview of the present status of relevant ecosystems, demonstrationcases of sustainable use of forest resources, coordination of varioussocial actors at both the level of general information and the level ofpractice, strengthening of regional capacity and applied research(IUCN, 1994). The projects run by Intercooperation usually pay greatattention to monitoring both the planned activities and outputs and thesocio-economic change that results. Projects usually last several yearsand are subject to review on a regular basis.

For a project such as PROBONA, Beyond Fences could be useful as atool to review how social concerns are taken into consideration in theproject itself. A meeting could be called among the project staff andvarious counterparts to illustrate the status of activities and identifyproblems. After the presentations, one possible course of action wouldbe for the participants to split into three groups, each of which wouldexplore issues of participation, needs and management. Groups woulduse the material in the resource set to identify key elements for report-ing, prepare a summary of their analysis, and present it to the others.

Unlike Intercooperation, IUCN is a union of member organizations andis primarily interested in communicating and sharing knowledgeamong those members. Copies of Beyond Fences could be distributed toits members so that they can explore for themselves the crucial socialissues that make a difference in their conservation work. Those issuescould then be compared and discussed in workshops, where institutionmembers of IUCN will have a common frame of reference and possiblyeven a common lexicon. For instance, the experience of PROBONA,summarized with the help of the resource books, could be presented asa case study for the others to discuss and build upon.

Monitoringconservation inSouth America

In Pakistan, Intercooperation is supporting several intermediate-levelNGOs in the North West Frontier, Sindh and Punjab provinces. Theemphasis is on promoting sustainable land-use practices (e.g., inforestry and agriculture) and on strengthening membership-basedorganizations. Although some of the partner NGOs are experienced in

Networking and capac-ity building in Pakistanand southern Africa

9


relating to local societies and achieving effective results with participa-tory methodologies, others are not.

Intercooperation could offer Beyond Fences as a tool for its partnerNGOs. The resource books could be discussed in networking meetingsand — when appropriate — tried out in field activities. Workshopscould be called to discuss how the books can be used to plan, evaluate orredesign initiatives. Such workshops, in fact, may be scheduled as partof ongoing capacity-building.

Similarly, the volumes could be used in a six-week training course inHarare, promoted by IUCN and the Centre for Applied Social Sciencesof the University of Zimbabwe. The course is a residential initiative inwhich mid-level natural resource managers from southern Africancountries gather to review the social concerns relevant in their workand identify ways to respond to them. Beyond Fences could be used bythe course participants as a tool for group work, a source of ideas and/ora reference package.

We hope that these examples provide some ideas on how to use theresource books. Yet, we would like you to remember that social situa-tions are invariably more complex than any document can fathom, andthat local customs and language will be fundamental in shaping theway in which the matters outlined in these volumes will be understoodand interpreted. In addition, it should not be expected that a positivecompromise or 'happy ending' is achievable in all situations. Too often,power imbalances among stakeholders, human failures, lack of finan-cial means, lack of accountability, natural disasters and the like willconspire against positive outcomes for both conservation and socialconcerns. Regular monitoring and feasibility assessments should bebuilt into any initiative so that, at least, the professional team canquickly reassess actions, as needs arise.

Users of these volumes are strongly encouraged to incorporate otherdocuments, resources and their own experience to build on the ideasand options offered here. Beyond Fences is intended to stimulate you tofigure out what needs to be done and how it could best be done. It maylook like a set of two books, but it isn't: Beyond Fences is a process!

References forintroduction

Cernea, M., personal communication, 1996.

IUCN/SUR, Progress and Assessment Report 1994 of the ProbonaProject, Quito, 1994.

IUCN, Socio-Economics of the Nile Perch Fishery on Lake Victoria,Project Proposal, Eastern Africa Regional Programme of IUCN, Nai-robi, 1996.

Picciotto R. and R. Weaving, "A new project cycle for the World Bank?"Finance and Development, Dec. 1994.

Telesis USA, Inc., Sustainable Economic Development Options for theDzanga-Sangha Reserve (Central African Republic), Executive Sum-mary, Providence R.I., 1996.

10

Introduction

Why should conservation professionals be concerned about socialissues? Why should they know about them and attempt to deal withthem in a positive manner? The experiences of the past provide us withsome possible answers.

Social acceptance is crucial for conservation to be sustainable.People play many direct and indirect roles in resource management.These roles need to be recognized and worked with in an effectivemanner. State policing and control against people's values and practicescan work only to a point, especially under the mounting problems ofpoverty and population dynamics, and within a process of economicglobalization. If people value and appreciate biodiversity, if organizedgroups derive concrete benefits from it, they have the best chances tosucceed in conserving it in the long run. If they do not, they are likely tobecome their own worst enemies when state control is — for any reason— lessened. Conversely, experience shows a positive correlation be-tween effective conservation and the provision of a wide range of socialbenefits and positive responses to social concerns.

The costs of top-down approaches are staggering. Has anyoneever added up the costs of imposed development and conservationinitiatives in recent decades? All over the world, examples abound oftop-down plans — concocted in faraway offices and totally imperviousto local capacities and concerns — which absorbed huge resources fortheir design and implementation and evolved into enormous failures.Few governments can today afford the economic costs of imposedconservation (e.g., for fences and guards) or its political costs (civildisorders, negative public relations).

The benefits of collaborative approaches are there to be real-ized. Very few conservation agencies, however capable and wellequipped, possess the capacities and comparative advantages necessaryfor the long-term sustainable management of natural resources. Avariety of social groups, both local and non-local, can help, providingknowledge, skills and resources and carrying out tasks for which theyare uniquely suited. For instance, state agencies can rarely do betterthan local communities in surveying the access to a protected area ordetecting early warnings of fire. Experienced entrepreneurs withforeign connections are generally most effective in initiating a tourismbusiness. Resource users possess detailed knowledge of local biodiver-sity and can be effective in monitoring it and suggesting how to pre-serve it locally. Importantly, they are often the most determined defend-ers of local resources against exploitation by external interests. Comple-mentary capacities do exist; the challenge is to create the conditions forcollaboration rather than competition and hostility.

Philosophies and practices have changed, with less money, newpartners, new ideas. About 20 years ago governments and the donorcommunity were generally ready to finance major development andconservation initiatives run by line ministries and national agencies.Today, the huge projects of the past are much less in favour, and thework of line ministries is increasingly being integrated with that ofNGOs and communities. Even in protected area management, alterna-tive approaches involving the contribution of NGOs and local groupsare becoming commonplace (Poff, 1996). All this goes hand-in-handwith financial constraints caused by adjustment measures and decreas-ing donor budgets. In all, the number of large, top-down conservationprojects to be implemented in the future is fast decreasing.

Why incorporate socialconcerns inconservation?

11

Seeking SocialSustainability


Effective processes and tools for socially sustainable conserva-tion initiatives do exist and do work. In a variety of contexts, therehave been positive results from approaches that respond to the capaci-ties and interests of local stakeholders and involve them in planningand implementing activities (see, for instance: Poffenberger 1990a and1990b; West and Brechin, 1991; Geoghegan and Barzetti, 1992;Makombe, 1993; White et al., 1994; Western and Wright 1995; Weber1995; Poffenberger, 1996). Moving from top-down approaches to partici-patory ones has promoted obvious and at times dramatic improvementsin local environmental management and biodiversity conservation. Insome cases the solution of local conflicts has been the basis for change.In others, a shift in the distribution of costs and benefits of conserva-tion has made the difference. Change also comes as a result of develop-ing specific agreements and appointing appropriate institutions forresource management.

Every initiative that affects people in a significant way involvesa clear political and moral responsibility. Conservation is aboutmanaging natural resources — a topic with profound political implica-tions, affecting people in important and multiple ways. As with anyother endeavour that affects people, conservation cannot escape theresponsibility of determining its consequences, as well as who willbenefit from it and who will pay the costs. It is politically and morallyunacceptable that in too many instances such responsibility is forgottenor shrugged off. In the long run this will only lead to bad social relation-ships and unsustainable initiatives.

Past Approaches Most colonial and post-colonial approaches to conservation operated onthe premise that local peoples' stakes and rights in natural resourceswere subsidiary to those of the state. State control over resource man-agement was placed in the hands of technical elites and issues pertain-ing to social sustainability were of marginal concern at best. In particu-lar it was often assumed that indigenous peoples were inimical to theconservation of wildlife and natural resources.

While one must be careful not to romanticize complex and evolvingsocial realities, it cannot be denied that most traditional societieshistorically coexisted with biodiversity, and that cultures and people'sproduction systems were often grounded in utilizing wild resources on asustainable basis (see, for instance Turnbull, 1961 and 1972; Reader,1988). Yet, throughout the past two centuries, traditional cultures andpeople were perceived by conservation planners mainly as threats. Theywere not involved in deciding how to manage resources; on the contrary,they were commonly ordered out of their territories and deprived ofaccess to the natural basis of their livelihood without discussion orcompensation. These potential stewards of biodiversity were alienatedfrom conservation, often to the point of becoming its active opponents.

As an example, African traditional hunters were branded as 'poachers'and pastoral peoples — such as the Maasai — were perceived as one ofthe major threats to wildlife. The fact that the big game dear to conser-vationists coexisted for centuries with these pastoral populations didnot seem to correct that perception. As aptly described by Adams andMcShane (1992):

12

Introduction

"The method for establishing parks has hardly changed in over a cen-tury. The process has always involved the expensive operation of remov-ing those people living on the newly protected land. In almost all cases,the result is a park surrounded by people who were excluded from theplanning of the area, do not understand its purpose, derive little or nobenefit from the money poured into its creation, and hence do not sup-port its existence. As a result, local communities develop a lastingdistrust of park authorities, in part because of the glaring lack of atten-tion those authorities, supported by conservationists, have traditionallypaid to the link between park ecology, the survival of wildlife, and thelivelihood of displaced people."

Fortunately, conservation is evolving. On the one hand, it is improvingits scientific understanding of human beings as components of ecosys-tems and moving away from an exclusive focus on the scientific aspectof biodiversity towards a better understanding and appreciation of itseconomic and cultural values. On the other, conservation is expandingits practice to include — besides traditional protected area manage-ment skills — a variety of participatory approaches, new institutionsand multiple/sustainable use schemes.

The first aspect of this change, which could be termed "socio-biological",greatly profited from scientific advances in ecosystem and speciesmanagement. As an example, "gap analysis" now determines wheregaps in biodiversity exist and need to be filled for the benefit of largerecosystems (Primack, 1995). An application of this understandingrecently promoted the survival of endangered bird species in Hawaii. Ingeneral, management plans are now much more concerned with ecosys-tem resilience, as is the case with the plans of the Pantanal in Brazil,Bolivia and Paraguay. Landscape conservation, the potential humanutilization of biodiversity and the existing policy and institutionalenvironment are also acquiring greater importance in ecosystem man-agement, as exemplified by some recent assessments of terrestrialecoregions in Latin America and the Caribbean (BSP et al., 1995;Dinerstein et al., 1995). In all, the role humans play in shaping ecosys-tems is becoming better known. In coming years, it is likely that such arole will be integrated in more sophisticated ways in the managementof ecosystems, to accommodate acceptable levels of resource use on acase-by-case manner.

In terms of protected areas, 'paper parks' disjointed from local societiesand decided solely on the basis of donor funding are — it is hoped — afeature of the past (Barzetti, 1993). Site selection for protected areas isincreasingly based on considerations of both biological value and socialfeasibility (Amend and Amend, 1995). Increasingly, conservation anddevelopment priorities are being integrated in strategies and plans(Brown and Wyckoff-Baird, 1994; Wells and Brandon, 1994; Vane-Wright, 1996). Studies are carried out to estimate the economic value ofbiodiversity in specific territories (WWF, 1995) and to understand theconditions in which community-based conservation develops and flour-ishes (Pye-Smith et al., 1994; Western and Wright, 1995). And in-depthunderstanding is sought as to how the commercial utilization of wildspecies promotes or detracts from conservation (Freese et al., 1994).

The second aspect of the evolution of conservation could be called"methodological-institutional". The key questions are: what means,processes and institutions render conservation feasible, effective and

New approaches

13


Social Sustainability

sustainable? No general answers can be provided to these questions,but resources such as Beyond Fences can facilitate the extensive con-text-specific inquiry necessary to provide local answers. If somethinggeneral can be said it is that conservation is a complex matter, involv-ing a variety of perceptions and interests. At best, all such perceptionsand interests meet in designing and implementing plans and activities.Polarized views — such as that "conservation is only a by-product of adevelopment agenda" or that "conservation is only a matter of soundbiological science" — contribute very little to real initiatives on theground. What is important, however, is to recognize that all conserva-tion initiatives need to be accountable to somebody, and that localcommunities are among the first to whom they should be accountable.

Increasingly, a variety of social groups are called on to contribute toconservation efforts and receive benefits in return (McNeely, 1995;Ghimire and Pimbert, 1996; Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Such benefitsmay be economic, such as access to resources, or the sharing of rev-enues in various private and public ventures (e.g., park fees, huntingtrophies, tourist enterprises, etc.). Or they may be cultural, such as therespect of local sacred sites, or the simple recognition of local communi-ties as the rightful stewards of local resources. The theory is verysimple: conservation is sustainable when, for all the relevant parties,its benefits are greater than its costs. In practice, attaining this condi-tion is invariably difficult. At times, even striking a balance betweenconservation and local needs does not appear possible. In those cases aconservation initiative should make the trade-offs very clear, make surethat the appropriate authorities and stakeholders are aware andinvolved, and support equitable solutions.

It is not our intention to provide a seamless definition of social sustain-ability in conservation. On the contrary, we would like to explore theconcept in a broad way, starting from a variety of meanings usuallyassociated with it. Among these are the following:• the maintenance or improvement of people's well-being over time,

based on an equitable distribution of costs and benefits of produc-tion systems;

• the presence of resource management systems that allow for theregeneration or replenishment of the resource base over time,which will in turn depend on the resilience of a particular ecosys-tem; and

• the inter-generational compromise by which present resourceusers can guarantee future generations the right to a similarresource base and lifestyle.

The above involve several considerations, whose relative weight canonly be judged within a specific context. Among others, these considera-tions include:• the security of access to resources and the security of tenure, as

the livelihood of many rural populations depends on them and onthe overall health of the natural resource base;

• the range of economic opportunities offered by the natural re-sources, both to local populations and outside actors;

• the local institutional capacity for resource management;• the local system of governance, rule of law and respect for justice,

including the traditional and customary law and resource man-agement systems;

14

Introduction

• the recognition of the range of stakeholders involved in or vyingfor the resources included in conservation initiatives; and

• the local and non-local conditions that allow for constructivedialogue and negotiation between a wide variety of actors andexternal factors (market, political and institutional climate, etc.)and, in particular, for giving voice to people affected by conserva-tion initiatives and who too often do not have the power to affectthem.

It is crucial to achieve a balance between the biological concerns ofconservation and the socio-economic and equity concerns of the peopleinvolved. Innovative approaches are being carried out, but critical gapsand unanswered questions still exist. These resource books have beendeveloped to help achieve such a balance in specific conservation initia-tives. The people and institutions which contributed to develop themare aware that no general answers or step-by-step guidelines can beprovided to the professionals involved in conservation. Yet, there aremeaningful questions, ideas, options, lessons from the past, concepts,tools and processes that can help. Some of these have been gathered inthese two volumes.

The challenges ahead

15

Some questions, in particular, appear crucial to conservation and spellout the challenges for the future in every specific site and territory.Among these are the following:

• Can conservation find roots in local and indigenousknowledge and institutions? Can it benefit both the environ-ment and the cultural identity of local societies? Are local knowl-edge and institutions open to integrate non-local lessons andpositive contributions?

• Who are the legitimate stakeholders in a given territory orset of resources? Can they all afford to participate in conserva-tion? Are they organized to represent themselves? Can theycontribute to conservation and receive benefits from it?

• Can the stakeholders enter into a partnership for conser-vation? What criteria can best guide such a partnership and thesharing of relevant rights and responsibilities in resourcemanagement?

• Is anyone promoting a process of communication, negotia-tion and conflict management among stakeholders? Canthe stakeholders develop an appropriate institution to be incharge of resource management and respond to the changingneeds of the relevant ecosystems and people?

• Are there effective options for local stakeholders to meettheir needs (livelihood as well as cultural and identityneeds) alongside conservation or — ideally — because ofit? Are the existing legal, and institutional conditions — forinstance the national system of resource tenure and institutionalrecognition — geared for this to happen? Are the existing eco-nomic conditions — for instance, infrastructure, markets, creditand taxation systems — geared for this to happen?

In many ways, seeking social sustainability means seeking practicalanswers to these questions.


References Adams, J. S. and T. O. McShane, The Myth of Wild Africa: ConservationWithout Illusion, W. W. Norton and Co., New York, 1992.

Amend, S. and T. Amend, National Parks Without People? The SouthAmerican Experience, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1995 (also availablein Spanish: ?Espacios sin Habitantes? Parques Nacionales de Américadel Sur, IUCN Gland (Switzerland) and Nueva Sociedad, Caracas,1992).

Barzetti, V. (ed.), Parks and Progress, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland),1993.

BSP (Biodiversity Support Program), Conservation International, TheNature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, World ResourcesInstitute and World Wildlife Fund, Regional Analysis of GeographicPriorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Latin America and the Carib-bean, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington D.C., 1995.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Collaborative Management of Protected Areas:Tailoring the Approach to the Context, Issues in Social Policy, IUCNGland (Switzerland), 1996.

Brown, M. and B. Wyckoff-Baird, Designing Integrated Conservationand Development Projects, Biodiversity Support Program with PVO-NGO/NRMS and World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C., 1994.

Dinerstein, E. et al., A Conservation Assessment of the TerrestrialEcoregions of Latin America and the Carribean, World Bank, Washing-ton D.C., 1995.

Freese, C. et al., The Commercial, Consumptive Use of Wild Species:Implications for Biodiversity Conservation, World Wide Fund ForNature, Gland (Switzerland), 1994.

Geoghegan, T. and V. Barzetti (eds.), Protected Areas and CommunityManagement, 'Community and The Environment — Lessons from theCaribbean', Series Paper 1, Panos Institute and CANARI (CaribbeanNatural Resources Institute), Washington D.C., 1992.

Ghimire, K. and M. Pimbert., Social Change and Conservation,UNRISD, Geneva, 1996 (in press).

Makombe, K., Sharing the Land, IUCN/ROSA Environmental IssuesSeries, 1, Harare, 1993.

McNeely, J. A. (ed.), Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, IslandPress, Washington D.C., 1995.

Poff, C, Survey of Management Approaches in Protected Areas, IUCN,Gland (Switzerland), 1996 (unpublished).

Poffenberger, M., "Conclusions: Steps towards establishing collabora-tive management", in Poffenberger, M. (ed.), Keepers of the Forest,Kumarian Press, West Hartford, 1990a.

Poffenberger, M., Joint Management of Forest Land: Experiences fromSouth Asia, Ford Foundation, New Delhi, 1990b.

Poffenberger, M. and B. McGean (eds.), Village Voices, Forest Choices,Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1996.

Primack, R., A Primer of Conservation Biology, Sinauer Associates,Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1995.

16

Introduction

Pye-Smith, C. and G. Borrini-Feyerabend with R. Sandbrook, TheWealth of Communities, Earthscan, London, 1994.

Reader, J., Man on Earth, Penguin, London, 1990.

Turnbull, C, The Forest People, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1961.

Turnbull, C, The Mountain People, Simon and Schuster, New York,1961.

Vane-Wright, R. I., "Identifying priorities for the conservation of biodi-versity: systematic biological criteria within a socio-political frame-work" in Gaston, K. (ed.), Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers andDifferences, Blackwell, London, 1996.

Weber, J., "L'occupation humaine des aires protegees a Madagascar:diagnostic et éléments pour une gestion viable", Natures, Sciences,Sociétés, 3, 2: 157-164, 1995.

Wells, M. and K. Brandon, People and Parks: Linking Protected AreaManagement with Local Communities, World Bank, Washington D.C.,1994.

West, P. and S. R. Brechin (eds.), Resident Peoples and National Parks,University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 1991.

Western, D. and R. M. Wright (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectivesin Community-based Conservation, Island Press, Washington D.C.,1995.

White, A. T., Hale-Zeitlin, L., Renard, Y. and L. Cortesi, Collaborativeand Community-based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons from Expe-rience, Kumarian Press, West Hartford (Connecticut), 1994.

WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), Real Value for Nature: An Over-view of Global Efforts to Achieve True Measures of Economic Progress,WWF, Gland (Switzerland), 1995.

17


1.1Involving thepeople

... the initiative has to be spe-cific about who is expected toparticipate in what activities,and about why, how, when andunder what conditions.

This section considers the prospects and methods for participation inpractice. It helps the management team to answer the questions: "howdo we involve the relevant people in the conservation initiative?" and"how do we get the stakeholders to participate?".

The team may find it helpful to visualize the degree of participation bylocating it along a continuum (see Figure 1). At one end is the classicconservation project, which is controlled and run by specialists (na-tional and/or expatriates), excludes the consideration of social concernsand various existing capacities, and does not involve stakeholderseither in decisions or activities. At the other end are initiatives origi-nated and fully controlled by stakeholders (e.g., communities, usergroups, associations, private owners) with no interference from theagencies supposedly in charge. In between these extremes are variousmodels of shared control that present different opportunities for anddegrees of stakeholder participation.

Three main observations can be made. First: the location in Figure 1(the actual de facto sharing of control) may not be sanctioned by law orpolicy (de jure). Control can be exercised in many ways, not all neces-sarily codified or explicitly mandated.

Second: stakeholder participation in an initiative has to be tailored tofit the unique needs and opportunities of each context. In other words,there is no 'best' place to be in the participation continuum. Differentapproaches should always be compared in terms of benefits, costs andexpected effectiveness. A conservation initiative needs to find its appro-priate niche in a specific historical and socio-political context and it iswithin that context that it should be evaluated.

Third: no matter where in the continuum a conservation initiative is'born' or 'set', its position may change. For instance, changes in legal,political, socio-economic and ecological factors induce modifications ininstitutional settings and/or management practices, and they in turnaffect the prospects (and needs) for stakeholder participation. In addi-tion, facing concrete problems and 'learning-by-doing' often lead to abetter recognition of the opportunity to involve various groups, particu-larly local people, in conservation.

Stakeholder participation presents different characteristics from placeto place and it usually varies, even within a specific place, over time. Ageneral consideration applies to all cases, however. Any initiative thatwishes to respond positively to social concerns has to assume a con-scious philosophy and approach. In other words, it has to be specificabout who is expected to participate in what activities, and about why,how, when and under what conditions. This first section of Volume 1helps the team to define the existing conditions for participation and tomodify, accept or reject some specific options for action. In this sense,the scale at which the initiative operates is crucial. Activities that arefeasible when dealing with a few communities may face serious con-straints in time and budget when there is a large number of stakehold-ers.

The professional team should foresee a number of difficulties and beprepared to face them. While a conservation initiative that encouragesparticipation is likely to benefit from the new approach, it is also likelyto face new issues and dilemmas as a result of the involvement ofvarious groups and individuals.

20

Figure 1

Section 1: Involving the People

Full control by Shared control by Full control byagency in charge agency in charge stakeholders

and stakeholders

actively seeking negotiating sharing transferringconsulting consensus (involving in authority authority and

decision- and respon- responsibilitymaking) and sibility in adeveloping formal wayspecific (e.g., via seatsagreements in a manage-

ment board)

No interference or No interference orcontribution from contribution fromstakeholders agency in charge

'

increasing expectations of stakeholders '

increasing contributions, commitment and 'accountability' of stakeholders '

Participation in a conservation initiative: a continuum

21

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —


1.2Key Questions

Key question 1.2.1 So far, who participates in theconservation initiative?

• Who had the idea of the initiative?

• Who is funding it?

• Who is (was) involved in planning it? Who actually worked on amanagement plan if one exists? Who made the major decisions about it?

• Who is responsible for implementing the initiative? Who is responsi-ble for monitoring and evaluating it?

• Who knows and is regularly kept informed about the initiative and itsfunctioning?

• So far, who has taken action for the initiative? Who has providedresources (human or otherwise)? Who has acquired benefits or suffereddamages?

• Have some individuals or groups complained because they have notbeen informed, contacted, heard, involved or because they have beentreated unfairly, have not received benefits, etc.?

• Is there any obvious social bias in terms of who has participated sofar? For instance, have women, ethnic minorities, economically disad-vantaged groups and various age groups been equitably involved in theinitiative?

For further reference Concept Files, Volume 2

Participation: why, what, when, how?Social actors and stakeholdersGender concerns in conservationIndigenous peoples and protected areasLocal institutions for resource managementEquity in conservation

22


Who are the main stakeholders?

• Who are the people and groups actually or potentially affected by and/or concerned about the conservation initiative? Are there: historicoccupants, e.g., indigenous residents and regular transients? Localsettlers who were already in the area before the beginning of the initia-tive? Recent migrants? Non-resident users of resources? Absenteelandlords? Major secondary users (e.g., buyers of products, tourists)?Government agencies responsible for various resources? Local authori-ties? Local and national politicians? Interested NGOs, peoples' associa-tions, research institutions, staff of relevant development and conserva-tion projects? Interested businesses and industries?

• How are the natural resources to be conserved being used at presentand by whom? Who specifically is having an impact on conservation?Has this changed over time?

• Who are the people or groups most dependent on the resources atstake? Is this a matter of livelihood or economic advantage? Are theseresources replaceable by other resources not in the conservation area?

• Who possesses claims — including legal jurisdiction and customaryuse — over the resources at stake? Are several government sectors andministry departments involved? Are there national and/or internationalbodies involved because of specific laws or treaties?

• Who are the people or groups most knowledgeable about, and capableof dealing with, the resources at stake? Prior to the conservation initia-tive, who was managing the resources? With what results?

• Are the stakeholders — and the stakeholders' interests in the re-sources — geographically and seasonally stable (e.g., are there seasonalmigration patterns)? Are there major events or trends currently affect-ing the stakeholders (e.g., development initiatives, land reforms, migra-tion, population growth or decline in a specific area, etc.)?

Key question 1.2.2

• Has there been a similar initiative in the region? If so, to what extentdid it succeed? Who was in charge and how did local people respond?

Concept Files, Volume 2

Social actors and stakeholdersBiodiversity and rural livelihoodIndigenous resource management systemsIndigenous peoples and protected areasGender concerns in conservationPopulation dynamics and conservationSocial concerns in resettlement programmesCommon property, communal property and open access regimes

For further reference

23


Key question 1.2.3 Are all stakeholders able to participate?

• Are there social factors (e.g., literacy, gender, ethnicity) affecting theability of one or more stakeholders to contribute to and/or benefit fromthe conservation initiative?

• Do any of the venues used for meetings exclude a particular group(e.g., women, ethnic or religious group)? Is the language of meetingscomprehensible to all?

• Can all stakeholders afford to participate (e.g., can they afford thetime and/or expenses to reach a meeting venue)?

• Do all stakeholders feel comfortable participating (e.g., or are arethey concerned about being asked for contributions they cannot make;do they fear being singled out or punished if they express themselvesfreely)?


Participation: why, what, when and howSocial actors and stakeholdersGender concerns in conservationPoverty, wealth and environmental degradationGovernance and the rule of law

24


How do stakeholders relate to oneanother?

• Are there relationships of hierarchy or direct dependence amongstakeholders? Are there powerful families, clans or businesses capableof influencing and controlling others? Is their power base stable orchanging?

• Are there factions or political groups that separate and/or cut acrossstakeholders in the conservation initiative?

• What degree of autonomy do villages have? Do they collect taxes anduse tax revenues to support local development, or are incomes beingtaxed to benefit others?

• Are the stakeholders' interests in the natural resources compatiblewith one another or in conflict? If conflicts of interest exist, is violenceinvolved? Have the less powerful groups developed strategies to dealwith those conflicts? Is the conservation initiative affecting thesestrategies? Is the initiative allied (or seen as being allied) with someparties in conflict with others?

• Are the local conflicts muddled or clear to all? Are conflicting partiesdiscussing matters with one another? Is anyone facilitating the discus-sion? Are there local mechanisms and institutions which can help tomediate an agreement among them?

• Was there ever an agreement developed among conflicting parties(with or without external support)? If yes, how was it achieved?

• Have the stakeholders any previous experience of working together?If so, to what effect?

Key question 1.2.4

Concept Files, Volume 2Social actors and stakeholdersIndigenous peoples and protected areasIndigenous resource management systemsConflicts in conservationEquity in conservationDecentralizing and devolving government


25


Key question 1.2.5 Are all the stakeholders organized?

• Are there local institutions for resource management? How do theyoperate? With what results? Are they affected by the conservationinitiative? Are they, or are they expected to be, involved in it in anypositive way?

• Are all stakeholders organized in traditional institutions (e.g., clans),or official associations, with members, rules, etc.? Alternatively, arethey organized informally or on an ad hoc basis, just for a specificpurpose? Are any of them not organized at all?

• Does a suitable system of representation exist for all importantstakeholders, so that they can play an active role in the conservationinitiative?

• If representation exists, is it legitimate and accountable to all therelevant people? Is there any evident skewing in ethnic group, caste,age, class, gender or focus of interest among the representatives?

• If no suitable systems of representation exist, can something be doneto help the stakeholders organize and interact with others?

• Has any stakeholder discussed the possibility of taking on somespecific responsibilities in the management of the resources at stake?


Social actors and stakeholdersParticipation: why, what, when and how ?Local institutions for resource managementIndigenous resource management systemsA project or a process?

26



Have all the stakeholders been informedand been heard about the conservationinitiative?

• Is the professional team working for the conservation initiative intouch with the local stakeholders? With all of them? At the appropriatelevel (e.g., at the level where people take and carry out decisions affect-ing natural resources)?

• Were/are the stakeholders contacted, informed and listened to inways appropriate to their culture and level of literacy?

• Are all the stakeholders well-informed about the implications of theconservation initiative, i.e., knowledgeable about the specific benefitsand costs actually or potentially accruing to them?

• Are the management and staff of the conservation initiative aware ofwhat various stakeholders feel, believe and are doing about the initia-tive?

• Are some stakeholders collaborating with the conservation initiative?How did the collaboration develop?

• Are some stakeholders actively opposed to the conservation initiative?How does the opposition manifest itself?

Key question 1.2.6


Participation: why, what, when, how ?Social actors and stakeholdersGender concerns in conservationConflicts in conservationLocal knowledge in conservationCross-cultural communication and local media


27


Key question 1.2.7 Is there political support for participationin the conservation initiative?

• What is the political history of the area? Do local residents enjoy adegree of autonomy from the national government? For instance arelocal taxes used directly — at least in part — for local projects andbenefits?

• What is the local experience of participation? Is there any history ofpolitical conflict associated with colonial, recent or contemporaryregimes? Are people usually confident or fearful in expressing theiropinions?

• Within the conservation community at local, national and interna-tional (e.g., donors) level, is there support for a participatory approachin the initiative at stake?

• What is the national government's attitude towards people's partici-pation? Is the concept mentioned often or generally avoided? Is it usedas a slogan? Is it practised in restrictive ways? Is participation everrepressed outright? Is it promoted and implemented in specific govern-mental sectors (e.g., the health system)? If yes, are there lessonslearned there that can be of use in the conservation initiative?

• What is the attitude of the local government administration towardspeople's participation? Are local people usually informed and consultedabout important decisions? Are they involved in development activities?In general, is the contribution of local people and groups recognized andvalued by the local administration?

• Is people's participation in the conservation initiative likely to affectthe distribution of power in the local area? If so, how are those ad-versely affected likely to respond? Are there individuals or groups (e.g.,a major land-owner or armed resistance group) who may feel free to actoutside legal constraints and affect people's participation in the initia-tive?

For further reference Concept Files, Volume 2Participation: why, what, when, how ?Gender concerns in conservationLocal institutions for resource managementEquity in conservationIndigenous peoples and protected areasGovernance and the rule of lawDecentralizing and devolving government

28


Is there a legal and institutionalenvironment favourable to participation?

• Is there a national or regional strategy for conservation? Does it makeprovision for recognizing local interests and capacities?

• Does the law recognize local actors (such as organized groups ofresource users) as entities with legal status, the capacity to assumeresponsibilities, and the capacity to acquire benefits and share themamong their members?

• Where stakeholders are involved, are they given equitable represen-tation and 'weight' in the discussion and negotiation processes?

• What types of local institutions for resource management are offi-cially recognized in the country? Are these also present at the site of theconservation initiative? If not, are they at least known by the localpeople?

• Are there — in the country or locally — peoples' associations andNGOs that could play a role for the conservation initiative? Are theyknown by the locals? Do they have any vested interests which couldaffect their acceptance by the local actors?

• Is the central government effectively sharing authority and responsi-bility with its regional, district and local representatives? Is there anyspecific legislation regulating such a "decentralization" process? Is thatlegislation actually implemented?

• In general, are policies and laws implemented and respected in thecountry? Is there a fair judicial system in place? Do people know andtrust the system? Are there social pressures by which people feel boundto comply with norms, rules and agreements?

Key question 1.2.8


Indigenous resource management systemsLocal institutions for resource managementCollaborative management regimesConflicts in conservationGovernance and the rule of lawDecentralizing and devolving governmentCommon property, communal property and open access regimes.


29


What specific channels, mechanisms andhuman resources are available to supportparticipation?

• Are there channels to inform and consult stakeholders about theconservation initiative (e.g., local journals, meeting places, bulletinboards, etc.)? Are they being used for this purpose? Are there specificevents (celebrations, rituals, markets) where information can be passedon?

• Are there specific places where stakeholders can interact with thepromoters, managers and staff of the conservation initiative and pro-vide advice, discuss activities, and promote or oppose decisions?

• Is there any institution or individual who does or could facilitate aprocess of negotiation among different stakeholders to achieve a man-agement agreement acceptable by all? Is assistance available to identifyand deal with conflicts?

• Could future agreements result in written and signed documents?Could some person or institution provide a secretariat for that?

• Could future agreements be legally binding? On what legal basis?Could someone provide legal counselling to develop an agreement?Would there be a body to settle controversies, should they arise?

• Are there ways by which stakeholders can invest in the conservationinitiative (e.g., in terms of money, labour, opportunity costs) with theexpectation of future returns?


Indigenous resource management systemsDecentralizing and devolving governmentManaging conflicts in conservationGovernance and the rule of lawCollaborative management regimesCross-cultural communication and local media

30

Key question 1.2.9


What economic resources are available topromote participation?

• Do those funding the initiative recognize the need to involve localstakeholders? Are they earmarking specific funds for that purpose?

• Are the stakeholders themselves contributing or willing to contribute(in cash or kind)?

• What is the likely, and what is the optimum, time period over whichfunding for stakeholder participation in the initiative could be pro-vided?

Key question 1.2.10


Participation: why, what, when, how?Local institutions for resource managementIndigenous resource management systemsA project or a process?Economic valuation in conservationIncentives and disincentives to conservation


31


1.3Indicators ofparticipation

32

Percentage of people (or proportionof stakeholders) who expressconfidence in being able toinfluence the initiative

Local "ownership" of the initiative(locals talk about it with interest,pride, concern, energy, passion)

Variety of viewpoints and pro-posals put forth during meetingswhere the initiative is discussed

Level of open disagreementexpressed in meetings where theinitiative is discussed(positive indicator!)

Ability of management and staff tolist the main stakeholders, theirkey interests and concerns aboutthe initiative, name a representa-tive for each stakeholder and illu-strate the activities carried out toinvolve them in the initiative

Ability of stakeholders to representthemselves in discussions aboutthe initiative, to articulate theirown interests and concerns and tonegotiate agreements with others

Stakeholders are very reluctant totalk about the initiative. Answersto questions are yes/no type andthe topic is avoided, especiallywhen 'outsiders' are present

Locals talk about the conserva-tion initiative as "your project" orwith obvious resentment

Locals create derogatory names,songs or skits about the initiative

Major meetings to take decisionsabout the initiative are poorlyattended and some key stakehold-ers are not represented at all

Meetings are dominated by oneperson or group pushing sectarianinterests

Some stakeholders stronglyoppose the initiative, but werenever given an opportunity todiscuss their concerns with themanagement of the initiative and/or other stakeholders

Opposition is expressed via acts ofrebellion and violence, possiblyanonymous (e.g., destruction ofinformation signs associated withthe protected area)

Indicators

Percentage of local people (or pro-portion of stakeholders) who knowabout the conservation initiative,its objectives and managementprocedures, what to do to contactits management, etc.

Warning flags

Several stakeholders andeven key local people (e.g.,traditional authorities)are not aware of theinitiative

Indicators

Extent to which local leaderssupport the initiative andattract community support for it

Number and relevance of activities(in the conservation initiative) inwhich local actors play an activerole (e.g., as salaried staff, keyadvisors, evaluators, etc.)

Number of local groups andassociations that have regularrelationships with the initiative

Percentage of local people (propor-tion of stakeholders) who say theyappreciate the conservation initia-tive and derive benefits from it

Average net flow of "investments"in the initiative (per household orper stakeholder, as appropriate)

Percentage of local people (orstakeholders) who say they haveentered into a relationship or part-nership with other local groupsbecause of the initiative

Percentage of local people (or stake-holders) willing to enter into colla-borative management agreementsor take charge of the initiative

Provision of resources and otherforms of support for people'sparticipation from local/regional/national government


Warning flags

Most stakeholders lackorganization and formalrepresentation

Local leaders (traditionaland governmental) are unable toenforce rules and sanctions

Community protects those who aredamaging the initiative (e.g.,warning off poachers so they can'tbe apprehended)

The initiative is entirely run bynon-locals and/or expatriates

The majority of respondents of agiven group (e.g., women, or anethnic minority) state that theyreceive no benefits whatsoever, orare actually worse off because ofthe conservation initiative

No local investment (in cash orkind) has ever been made in theconservation initiative

Emergence of new conflicts amongstakeholders

33


1.4Options foraction

The following options for action offer some ideas on how local peoplecan be included in a conservation initiative. These need to be consid-ered in the light of specific circumstances to judge whether they are orare not appropriate. You will undoubtedly think of other options as well.The list of options for actions should not be viewed as a step-by-stepprocedure, although it is set out in the order in which options would belogically considered. (For example, you will need to have identified thestakeholders and informed them about the initiative before you canconsider involving them in a planning exercise.) Also, some of theoptions below are alternatives to one another and need to be comparedin terms of appropriateness to the particular context.

The list of options is divided into three groups according to type ofactivity. These are:

Options to identify stakeholders and inform them about theconservation initiative

1.4.1 Inventory of actual/potential stakeholders1.4.2 Stakeholder analysis1.4.3 Information campaign1.4.4 Public relations service1.4.5 Environmental discussion sessions

Options to build on the capacities of stakeholders and developlong-term, supportive relationships among them and theconservation initiative

1.4.6 Promoting internal discussion within each stakeholdergroup

1.4.7 Helping stakeholders organize1.4.8 Meetings and workshops to build bridges among

stakeholders1.4.9 Visits to similar initiatives with strong participatory

components1.4.10 Strengthening local institutions for resource management1.4.11 Conservation Councils1.4.12 Institution for conflict management1.4.13 Training and incentives for staff and recruitment to fill

gaps in skills1.4.14 Promoting an effective legal basis for participation

Options to involve the stakeholders in the management of theconservation initiative

1.4.15 Assisting local communities to develop their ownconservation initiatives

1.4.16 Participatory appraisal and planning1.4.17 Collaborative management agreement1.4.18 Collaborative management institutions1.4.19 Devolving the initiative to local institutions1.4.20 Participatory monitoring and evaluation

34


Inventory of actual/potential stakeholders Option for action 1.4.1


35

Undertake an inventory of local groups, individuals, institutions,organizations and initiatives with interest and/or involvement inresource management. Take care to include those who use the resourceson an erratic or seasonal basis as well as secondary stakeholders (i.e.,those who have a 'downstream' interest in the resources, such as usersof water flowing from a wetland or purchasers of products acquiredfrom the conservation area). Potential stakeholders (i.e., those likely toacquire an interest as a result of future development of the conserva-tion initiative, such as tourism-related businesses) should also beconsidered.

A stakeholder inventory is appropriate when the structure of localcommunities is relatively simple and the stakeholders are easily identi-fiable. The exercise can be undertaken in a round-table brainstormingsession with field staff and the management of the conservation initia-tive. The inventory will provide an overview of the actual and potentialstakeholders and their relative importance and strength. It will also beof great value in indicating the diversity and complexity of the interestswhich need to be taken into account. In fact, it will provide a basis uponwhich to identify key partners or groups to participate in the variousaspects of the initiative.

After the brainstorming you may want to contact those groups anddiscuss with them their position regarding the conservation initiative.Consider carefully who is representing the views of the groups, andwhat biases the positions may reflect. You might want to collect infor-mation from more than one member in each group.

Potential obstacles that could be encountered in this exercise aredistrust between local people and official agencies, and language andcultural barriers, all of which can hamper the collection of information.Also, inventories need to be updated often to retain their relevance tothe initiative.

See Question 1.2.2, Volume 1; and Examples 1a-c in Section 6, Volume 2


Option for action 1.4.2 Stakeholder analysis

Undertake a detailed stakeholder analysis, identifying the relation-ships of relevant groups and individuals to the area and resourcesaffected by the initiative. Identify local decision-making organizations,the way decisions are made and the holders of relevant specialistknowledge in the community (e.g., resource user groups). Assess theeffects the initiative will have on them. Also identify those who couldorganize activities to discuss and promote participatory prospects in theinitiative. Analyze the roles and responsibilities of the various groupsand individuals and the ways they could be affected by the initiative.

Specifically include in the study an analysis of the individuals andgroups affected by impacts on employment, wealth, nutrition andpopulation dynamics. Consider gender, age, ethnic and class variables.Pay particular attention to any effects the conservation initiative couldhave on vulnerable groups (e.g., refugees, ethnic minorities).

A stakeholder analysis is more appropriate than an inventory (option1.4.1) when the communities affected are complex and the stakeholdersand their relationships to the resources are not easily identifiable. Astakeholder analysis requires more time and resources than an inven-tory, since the analysis is usually carried out in the field and involvesparticipatory exercises and the collection of new data.

The use of natural resources is typically characterised by diverse andconflicting interests. For instance, many local communities are sociallystratified; knowing the different interests of the various members willhelp in organizing their participation in the initiative as well as indeveloping local resource management institutions. Undertaking astakeholder analysis will also provide a frame of reference for furthersteps in the initiative and for dealing with various consequences andconflicts which may emerge.

A possible constraint to this exercise is that it requires more expertisein social analysis and community consultation techniques than astakeholder inventory. Undertaking an analysis can also be costly andtime-consuming and, as with inventories, the end product will need tobe updated to maintain its relevance to the initiative.

For further reference See Questions 1.2.2, 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, Volume 1; Information Gatheringand Assessment in Section 5, Volume 2 and Examples 2a-c in Section 6,Volume 2.

36


Information campaign

Set up a campaign to inform people about the conservation initiative,its goals, ways of working, its benefits, and the ways in which localpeople and groups can become involved and benefit from it. If there areprejudices or false information about the initiative, specifically aim todispel them. Be clear about any potential costs and about what theinitiative will and will not do, so as not to create false expectations.Involve local institutions, schools, NGOs, women's groups, community-based organizations, government, and cultural and religious institu-tions, as appropriate.

Care must be taken to ensure that the forums and methods used do notexclude some sections of the community. For example, some traditionalsystems may marginalize women and minority groups. Be aware ofliteracy levels among the stakeholders and adopt suitable communica-tion methods. Use at least some information tools which are not de-pendent on literacy, such as community meetings, street theatre, orpictorial posters. Household visits may be appropriate where the popu-lation is relatively scarce and scattered and literacy levels are low.

As a first step, investigate appropriate ways and means to reach spe-cific user groups. Some may prefer to run their own campaigns withassistance from the initiative. These can interact with the 'official'information dissemination process.

Freely distributed information can help build trust between the man-agement of the initiative and the local stakeholders. A comprehensiveinformation campaign can also greatly increase the level of local aware-ness, not just about the initiative but about the general state of localresources. Such a campaign will foster a better understanding of theinitiative's benefits and costs in both the long and short term. It canalso be used to request the stakeholders to identify themselves. If thecampaign is used for this purpose it is best to make the request for adisplay of interest quite general, using simple and comprehensivecriteria to define stakeholders.

As a word of caution, problems may arise if information about theconservation initiative is inadequate. Faulty or conflicting informationcan create a suspicion that the managers are 'hiding something'.

Option for action 1.4.3

See Questions 1.2.6 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Social Communication inSection 5, Volume 2 and Examples 3a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.


37


Option for action 1.4.4 Public relations service

If the conservation initiative is large, set up a public relations desk. Itshould be a place where people can visit to ask questions and offeralternative ideas. It may also be a place to disseminate information, anentry point for relevant databases and, possibly, a coordination centrefor consultants and training. Even if the initiative is small, the staffshould ensure that local people feel welcome at all times.

Provide an area with an information display about the initiative andshow how further information can be requested. Ask local schools,institutions and individuals to visit the display and pose questions.Have a highly-visible suggestion/complaints box (this will work bestwhere people know how to write and are comfortable writing com-ments). Provide information on the decision-making processes affectingthe initiative. If local actors are to influence these processes they needto be aware of how they operate and of the responsibilities of the vari-ous agencies involved.

Present information in ways that are appropriate to the area and theinitiative. Are the potential users likely to be literate? Consider pam-phlets and posters, presentations to schools and churches, guided toursof the conservation area, and audio-visual displays. Recruit local people(artists, teachers, business-people) to design and present the informa-tion. Avoid using techniques which give the impression that the initia-tive has "lots of money" or is top-down and owned by the staff workingfor it; in some communities, audio-visuals may have this effect. Thiscan lead to unrealistic expectations of what the initiative can provideand undermine efforts to create a dialogue.

It is important that information be made available in the local lan-guage, and that it is up-to-date with solid content, to be as useful aspossible. A system should be put in place which ensures that all re-quests for information are dealt with promptly and that people are keptinformed of actions taken in response to any suggestions or complaints.

By collecting views and information, the service can also act as a moni-toring mechanism, picking up on local perceptions, identifying sensitiveissues and stakeholder conflicts as well as positive experiences relatedto the initiative. It can also be the basis for networking on key issues.

For further reference See Questions 1.2.6 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Social Communication inSection 5, Volume 2; and Examples 4a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.

38

Environmental discussion sessions

Organize discussion sessions in local communities, in the local lan-guage, emphasising a dialogue approach and using techniques and toolsthat are culturally appropriate and appealing (e.g., theatre, games,audio-visuals, competitions). Include information on the initiative andits benefits in the local area.

There are many ways to discuss environmental matters that are user-friendly, fun and involve the whole community, including children andthe elderly. For instance, helping people to develop a slide show on localproblems and resources can be very effective in raising awareness.

The need for conservation should be presented in a non-judgmental wayand ideally should arise spontaneously from discussions. People maynot be aware of the problems created by their actions or they may beaware of the damage but have few options (e.g., an influx of migrantsmay have reduced the land available or modern schooling may havemeant a loss of traditional knowledge). If people are struggling forsurvival, they may have no alternative but to rely on the resources in aprotected area.

Discussions allow the staff to learn local people's rationale for theiractions. Open-ended discussions may improve their understanding ofthe causes of environmental problems. Staff can then look for solutionsthat local people feel are beyond their control. Once people have as-sessed for themselves the importance of conserving natural resources,encourage them to discuss what this implies for their life and work; thecosts and benefits of changes; and possible activities to limit costs andoptimize benefits. When project staff contemplate a new activity toprovide alternative income or replace resources, they would be wise tohold a series of these discussions as a way to sound public opinion.

Hold regular follow-up sessions; one cannot expect a single event tohave an impact. Scheduling regular sessions will be appreciated bylocal people as evidence of staff commitment. Use techniques that areculturally appropriate and financial resources in line with local life-styles. Also, be prepared to manage possible conflicts (e.g., one group orindividual may blame another for the damage to the environment).Lively and meaningful discussion is likely to include differences ofopinion.


See Questions 1.2.6 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Concept File 4.29 (Cross-cultural communication and local media), Volume 2; Social Communi-cation in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 5a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.


39



Once the stakeholders in the conservation initiative have been identi-fied, contact all of them to request their opinions/advice on variousissues and activities, including activities they can undertake them-selves. Encourage them to discuss the initiative and the costs andbenefits it could bring to the individuals and groups that constituteeach separate interest. Each stakeholder group will have a differentview depending on their relationship to the resources in question. Byfirst discussing the initiative among themselves, they can clarify theirown position before meeting for discussions with other stakeholders.This is a particularly important step to build confidence among lesspowerful and articulate groups.

Holding discussions within their own interest group encourages stake-holders to clarify their concerns and possibly develop a sense of owner-ship in the initiative. For the managers of the initiative, the processprovides an opportunity to gain insight into the perceptions and inter-ests of local actors and to identify common interests and potentialconflicts.

Some stakeholders will not be organized into any sort of group. Bring-ing them together with others who have common interests can taketime and there may be some resistance to discuss matters in an openway when people do not know each other. In such circumstances afacilitator may be needed to call a meeting and make sure that theagenda brings out the common interests of the group. Where there aremigratory or erratic resource users, bringing these groups together canbe a time-consuming exercise.

The way the meetings are conducted is important. In general, the staffof the conservation initiative should not participate, but should beavailable to provide any information the stakeholder group may need.It should also be clear that the management of the initiative looksforward to an open and constructive relationship with the organizedstakeholders.

For further reference See Question 1.2.5, Volume 1; Information Gathering and Assessment inSection 5, Volume 2; and Examples 6a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.

40

Option for action 1.4.6 Promoting Internal discussion within eachstakeholder group


Helping stakeholders organize

Where there are power differences that disadvantage some stakehold-ers, the balance may improve if such stakeholders organize themselvesin formal or informal ways. Help such stakeholders to organize (e.g., byoffering information, training in managerial and financial skills, accessto credit, opportunities to meet with organized groups, opportunities todiscuss issues with specific bodies, access to technical, organizationaland legal advice, etc.). In particular, non-organized resource users couldbe assisted to represent themselves in discussions regarding the conser-vation initiative (travel support, per diems, etc.).

Every stakeholder will have different information, concerns and inter-ests which need to be considered and developed. Making sure that allstakeholders are able to develop their own position and form of repre-sentation may initially result in more challenges to the initiative. In thelonger term, however, through mass mobilization or putting localknowledge to good use, the initiative can greatly increase the level oflocal support and provide an effective counterbalance to destructiveoutside forces.

In providing such assistance, it is important that the approach iscompatible with the culture and practices of the stakeholders con-cerned. Whenever appropriate, work within existing social gatheringsby adding the conservation issue to existing agendas, rather thanholding separate meetings. Avoid setting up new organizations unlessthere is no alternative. Where some stakeholder groups are particularlyvulnerable and have little influence with other stakeholders and deci-sion-makers, you may consider providing support to an umbrella or-ganization, which would group the same interests from a variety ofcommunities (see Example 7a). An umbrella organization may be veryeffective in attracting funding and expertise to assist stakeholders, andto thus increase their bargaining power.

The duration and scale of the initiative will affect the extent to whichstakeholders need to organize (e.g., as informal groups with a commoninterest or as a formal representative system). It must be rememberedthat building organizational skills among a disparate group is always aslow process. People need to feel that being part of an organized groupis necessary to protect their interests.


See Questions 1.2.3 and 1.2.5, Volume 1; and Examples 7a-d in Section6, Volume 2.


41


Option for action 1.4.8 Meetings and workshops to build bridgesamong stakeholders

Organize a series of meetings or workshops with representatives of asmany stakeholders as possible, to discuss the need for the initiative andto encourage them to share their views. Start the meeting on a neutraltone, e.g., provide information about the environment and the aims ofthe conservation initiative. Where there are conflicts among stakehold-ers, such an approach will help people settle into the subject and feelmore comfortable with each other. If necessary, sensitive aspects (suchas local causes of environmental damage, or disproportionate benefits)can be dealt with in follow-up meetings.

Be sensitive to when people are ready to come together. They won'tcooperate if the meeting is imposed on them. Build on concepts ofmutual assistance and common interests. Be aware of power structureswithin communities and institutions which may inhibit some stake-holders from contributing. Work on avoiding this as much as possible.

If appropriate, invite local authorities, local leaders, etc. to the meet-ings but make sure their presence does not make people feel uncomfort-able when they are expressing their opinions. Pay attention to timing,so that everyone can attend (e.g., women who are busy with householdchores). Note who attends and who does not. In planning subsequentmeetings, think about how to better contact and attract those who didnot attend.

Hold meetings in the local language. Document the discussions andmake sure that all participants know when and where they can seecopies of these records and copies of any conclusions reached.

The facilitation of these meetings is crucial to their success. If meetingsare well-managed, they can provide an opportunity for each stakeholderto hear and appreciate others' views and concerns. This is the basis ofconstructive interaction among the various interests. If meetings arepoorly organized and facilitated, then some stakeholders may not beheard or may be intimidated by others, losing resources and goodwill.When meetings are not successful, positions tend to become entrenchedand parties become less, rather than more, trusting of one another.

For further reference See Question 1.2.4, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.10 (Local knowledge inconservation) and 4.15 (Conflicts in conservation), Volume 2; Participa-tory Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 8a and 8b inSection 6, Volume 2.

42


visits to similar Initiatives with strongparticipatorf components

Organize visits to similar conservation initiatives where local peopleare successfully and positively involved. Stakeholders can be offeredtravel support to meet with similar groups and discuss their methods ofparticipation and problem-solving. In preparation for the visit, you maydiscuss what they should look for, what they can expect to learn andwho should go. Follow up with a shared debriefing on lessons learned.

Such visits can be very encouraging for local people, provided the areato be visited has similar problems, a similar culture, and a similar levelof resources. The visits provide visible proof that the environment canbe improved and that stakeholders can play an important part in theprocess. Hearing positive information from people like themselves andbeing able to see concrete results is usually much more convincing thaninformation given by officials or the staff of the initiative. It also pro-vides people with a realistic picture of what is involved in participating,as they talk to people who have been through similar experiences andanalyze the problems they encountered and the mistakes they made.

The visits can also assist in building bridges among stakeholders asthey share the experience and establish personal relationships. Long-term networks can be established with the people in the demonstrationarea so that both groups continue to share information and support.

An important point to note is that the area visited must be comparablein terms of natural resources, issues, culture and language. This maynot be easy to find in the vicinity. If greater distances are involved, thetime and cost involved may decrease the enthusiasm and interest of thelocal stakeholders and/or funders of the initiative.

There are several issues that need to be considered for this option.Avoid looking only at successes; much can be learned from groups whoare experiencing problems. Problems will alert visitors to the potentialpitfalls of an initiative. Make sure that a broad range of stakeholdersjoin the group, not just those who are already positive about the conser-vation initiative. And beware of visiting one area too frequently. Ex-plaining their programme to too many visitors without receiving recip-rocal benefits can become a burden to 'model communities'.


See Examples 9a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.

43



Option for action 1.4.10 Strengthening local institutions forresource management

Whether local institutions for resource management (e.g., a forestmanagement committee or a fisherman's group) have a long tradition orare recently established, they can be positively involved in the conser-vation initiative through specific roles. They can be helped to streng-then themselves by being provided with technology, credit, training (inadministrative, managerial and technical skills) or through links withother organizations. But avoid disrupting the local economy, undermin-ing self-reliance or altering social relations, all of which may bringunexpected negative consequences. The initiative should not act inways which create or worsen disharmony between local interests. Forinstance, while the power of anti-conservation groups can at times bebroken by external interventions, this may not be wise in the long run.They will still be part of the community and may disrupt conservationin many ways. It is better to involve them than to antagonise them.

Enabling local institutions to strengthen their involvement in resourcemanagement increases local autonomy, decreases dependency on na-tional and international institutions and funding, and increases pros-pects for effective local participation in the initiative. Because commu-nities may be stratified, and because there are usually many stakehold-ers in a conservation initiative, local institutions can become importantmechanisms for integrating and mediating between various interests.

In some countries (especially post-colonial ones) local institutions maybe weak or nonexistent in significant policy areas, including conserva-tion. It will not be easy to establish new institutions or build up weakones in such cases. Much time and expert personnel may be needed. Itwill also take time for any new institution to gain legitimacy. On theother hand, the approach can result in lasting benefits for local commu-nities and the conservation initiative, as local organizations develop thecapacity to promote, manage and monitor environmental measures.

The mere existence of local institutions is not enough. They need to besupported by policies and/or legislation which recognizes their right tobe involved and to undertake specific tasks (see option 1.4.14).

For further reference See Questions 1.2.5, 1.2.7 and 1.2.8, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.2 (Indig-enous Resource Management Systems) and 4.3 (Local Institutions forResource Management), Volume 2; and Examples 10a-e in Section 6,Volume 2.

44


Conservation Councils

Set up a Conservation Council and include representatives of all majorstakeholders. A council can provide a key advisory (not decision-mak-ing) role and serve as a forum for discussion and consultation amongstakeholders. It can identify and discuss resource use, management andtenure; interpret national laws and legislation; draft relevant regula-tions; identify research needs and needs for infrastructure support,services and policies; and propose specific activities. The council mayalso be called on to approve/endorse the operating plans of the conser-vation initiative. But a council, unlike a Collaborative ManagementInstitution (option 1.4.18), is not usually a decision-making body.

Membership in the council will give stakeholders the chance to buildskills in procedures policy and negotiating, and will provide an over-view of environmental concerns. Members and the groups they repre-sent will likely gain a greater sense of responsibility for the initiative.Over time, if appropriate, the council could provide the basis of acollaborative management institution with decision-making authority.

Because of the council's importance in protecting local interests anddisseminating information, members must be representative andaccountable, and discussions must not be dominated by a few individu-als or groups. All members should have a clear understanding of thecouncil's purpose, roles and powers. They should represent all majorstakeholders and both genders. Take care to balance interests; if com-mercial activities each have a representative, so should each environ-mental group). Most of all, ensure that less powerful stakeholders withprior rights (e.g., marginalized ethnic groups) do not lose those rightsby being subsumed into a group dominated by more powerful players.The council's convenor should be 'neutral' (an NGO or a respectedcommunity leader). A chairperson should be elected early on.

Be cautious where there are many stakeholders and diverse interests.The more members there are, the more difficult and expensive it can beto bring them together regularly. The more diverse the interests, theharder it will be to reach agreement. Give thought to paying memberswho incur expenses or undertake significant responsibilities. Frustra-tion with the system can undermine local support for the initiative.

See Questions 1.2.4, 1.2.7, 1.2.9 and 1.2.10, Volume 1; Concept File 4.16(Collaborative Management Regimes), Volume 2; and Examples 11a-c inSection 6, Volume 2.


45



Option for action 1.4.12 Institution for conflict management

Ask local people about traditional methods of conflict management(mediation, negotiation, etc.). Build on what exists, identify a relevantnew body (e.g., a local council) or nominate an individual to mediateand deal with conflicts between stakeholders and the initiative's man-agement, or among stakeholders. This body or person should be widelyrespected, and have the trust of all parties involved, particularly indig-enous groups. Keep gender issues in mind; both men and women shouldhave confidence in the system adopted. The mediating body must besensitive to power imbalances between stakeholders (users, regulators,etc.) and be able to maintain a neutral position in the conflict.

Conflict can undermine the viability or sustainability of an initiative.Establishing a formal conflict management system acceptable to allparties prevents conflicts from developing to the point where they areunresolvable and/or violent. Setting up such a system is very complex,however, and should be done only after lengthy public discussion andan exhaustive survey of existing mechanisms (courts, rituals, etc.). Anymechanism established by a short-term project is not likely to be sus-tainable. Staff must ensure that any new mechanism complementsexisting systems and doesn't compete with them or the authorities thatrun them (be they local shamans or police). The initiative can reallysuffer setbacks if the staff don't involve the full range of stakeholders.

There are two main kinds of conflict: conflict among users, and betweenusers and managers/regulators. Each may require a different approach.Conflict among users is often resolved by a commonly accepted media-tor. Social and community pressure for compromise can also help. Withmajor power differences it is more difficult; even more so when usersand a regulating agency disagree. Often there is a strong sense ofmistrust between them, the sides are not equal in strength, communitypressure is ineffective and there is political pressure to settle issuesquickly and without compromise.

Several factors are particularly important. The conflict managementinstitution must not be seen as being aligned with any party, includingmanagement. Those entering into agreements must have the authorityto represent their groups. And the conflict management institutionmust have some power (coercive and/or moral) to enforce agreements.

For further reference See Questions 1.2.4 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Concept File 4.15 (Conflicts inConservation), Volume 2; Conflict Management in Section 5, Volume 2;and Examples 12a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.

46


Training and incentives for staff to fill gapsin skills

Initiate training for the expatriate, local and/or counterpart staff insocial communication skills and participatory methods of appraisal,planning, monitoring and evaluation. Emphasize the attitudinal changeneeded to promote local participation in the initiative and to orientwork towards a more "enabling/promoting" role rather than a "control-ling/providing" one. You may also consider establishing a system ofincentives for the staff of the conservation initiative to reward thosewho succeed in promoting local participation. This option is not alwaysappropriate, however, and may actually result in 'fake' participation.

It is important to train the staff who actually work with the local peopleand other stakeholders. Those at management level should also betrained so that they appreciate and endorse the new approach beingadopted in the field. This kind of training not only builds skills, it alsoraises awareness of the abilities and resources of local people and howthey can be utilized to make the project more successful. It builds theconfidence of field staff in being able to deal with problems with stake-holders so they are more likely to respond in a helpful, constructive wayrather than by simply imposing their authority. Training and incentivesencourage the staff to become more interested, creative and dedicatedto their work.

Training must be relevant to the tasks staff are expected to perform.Most staff members welcome the chance to increase their skills; this initself is an incentive to better performance. But promises of trainingthat are not kept, or omitting some people from training, can make staffresentful. At best, training should be carried out by people working onsimilar tasks in similar initiatives who have the capacity to impartknowledge using specific examples. It should be backed up by a periodof supervision in the field and by ongoing support until staff are confi-dent with their new roles and skills. A professional may need to berecruited on a temporary basis to perform this role (see case study 13d).At times, it may be necessary to hire a person (e.g., an applied socialscientist) specifically to deal with social concerns. He or she wouldensure that participatory processes were adopted when identifying andresponding to key issues, writing management plans and monitoringand evaluating results.


See Question 3.2.6 and Option 3.4.3, Volume 1; and Examples 13a-d inSection 6, Volume 2.


47


Option for action 1.4.14 Promoting an efffective legal basisfor participation

Assess the legal basis (legislation, policies and guidelines) for participa-tion of local communities in the conservation initiative. Include anassessment of the status of local institutions for resource management,recognition of communal property regimes, status of local groups (ver-sus governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the body of resourcesat stake), women's rights to property, etc. Where the legal basis forparticipation is unclear and/or ineffective, consider hiring a legalcouncillor to draw a proposal for policy change to submit to the appro-priate authorities.

The existence of rights in law is not enough in itself. If the process forclaiming those rights is expensive, complicated or slow, the stakehold-ers, especially the poor, are usually not able to take advantage of them.Such aspects of legislation need to be assessed.

Where changes are needed, more appropriate policies and laws can bepromoted via national/regional workshops, national/regional reviews oflaws, submissions to the national or local government and politicalcampaigning.

For further reference See Question 1.2.8, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.3 (Local institutions forresource management) and 4.17 (Governance and the rule of law),Volume 2; and Examples 14a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.

48


Assisting local communities to developtheir own conservatlon initiatives

Through participatory processes, identify which conservation initiativesare already being undertaken or planned in the area, either by thecommunity or by others. Ask local stakeholders which activities theywould like agency assistance for, or with which agency operations theywould like to be involved. Discuss with them appropriate ways by whichthis involvement could be achieved.

This option reflects a belief in the value of bottom-up development.Listening to local people and letting them determine the appropriateareas and levels of involvement by outsiders will build self-esteem inthe community, and assist in the establishment of constructive interac-tion between the local community and outside agencies. If the wish forinvolvement and/or the need for an initiative have come from thecommunity, the commitment to joint planning and management proc-esses is likely to be sustainable.


See Question 1.2.1, Volume 1; Social Communication, and Planning inSection 5, Volume 2; and Examples 15a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.


49




Facilitate participatory appraisal exercises (also called participatoryaction research) by a variety of stakeholders. Deal with the local bio-logical and socio-economic environment, with specific reference toexisting interests, capacities and concerns relating to the conservationinitiative. Facilitate the development of specific proposals (participatoryplanning) which can be then submitted to the judgement of the localresidents at large (e.g., via referendums, open meetings, etc.) and/orfurther discussed by the authorities in charge. Ask community groupsfor suggestions on how they can use their own management systems forthe conservation of an area. Compare their suggestions with the ideasof the staff of the conservation initiative. Identify and discuss ways ofintegrating proposals from different sources. Look out for conflicts anddiscuss ways of accommodating these.

This process safeguards against technocratic planning being imposedfrom outside, which too often ignores the interests and capacities oflocal communities and other stakeholders. Involving affected parties inidentifying relevant issues and potential activities can increase theirknowledge and appreciation of the initiative and give them a sense ofownership in its future direction. It can also help to reduce the poten-tial for conflict in the implementation stage. In turn, involving the staffand management of the initiative in the exercise gives them a greaterunderstanding of the concerns and capacities of various stakeholders.

Several issues need to be considered before adopting this strategy.First, the process requires the time and involvement of facilitators withexperience and training. Such expertise may not be readily available.Also, if the stakeholders do not anticipate substantial benefits, theymay be unwilling to commit time and resources to the exercise.

Second, consider the commitment of the decision-makers to take intoaccount the results of the participatory exercise. Failure to do so willcreate frustration, disappointment and distrust among the participants,which could be very damaging to the initiative. Related to this is theneed to ensure that the inputs from the stakeholders are properlyrecorded, interpreted and utilized so all parties concerned gain themaximum benefit.

See Questions 1.2.1. and 1.2.7, Volume 1; Information Gathering andAssessment, and Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 16a-hin Section 6, Volume 2.

50

Participatory appraisal and planning


Collaborative management agreement

Support the development of a collaborative management agreement(also referred to as joint management, co-management, participatorymanagement or round-table agreement) in which representatives of allkey stakeholders agree on objectives for the conservation initiative andaccept specific roles, rights and responsibilities in its management. Theprocess of formulating the agreement should ensure that conflicts areexpressed openly, acknowledged, and dealt with.

A collaborative management agreement ensures that the trade-offs andcompensations for the stakeholders are clear and that all parties areaware of the commitments made by the other stakeholders. This pro-vides a good structure for internal monitoring and stakeholder account-ability. If necessary, identify an external facilitator to assist in mediat-ing and negotiating among stakeholders until a management plan hasbeen agreed upon. Support the plan's implementation and follow-up.Make sure that clear priorities are set for monitoring and evaluation ofthe agreed activities, and for enforcement and ongoing management ofconflicts, as needs arise.

Formulating an agreement among parties with diverse interests re-quires time, patience and specific skills. Stakeholders will be reluctantto participate if they feel they have nothing to gain by compromisingtheir interests. A collaborative management institution (e.g., a manage-ment board, a specific authority, etc.) may need to be established toimplement the agreement.


See Questions 1.2.4. and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.15 (Conflicts inconservation) and 4.16 (Collaborative management regimes), Volume 2;Conflict Management in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 17a-f inSection 6, Volume 2.


51



Establish a Collaborative Management Institution (e.g., a managementboard) to develop a management agreement and plan for the territory ofthe conservation initiative. The institution would also have responsibil-ity for implementing the agreement and the management plan, and forreviewing them, as needs arise. If necessary, the institution could hire aprofessional facilitator to help negotiate the agreement and plan.

The principal difference between a Conservation Council and a Collabo-rate Management Institution is that the latter has the power to makedecisions. This is essential if the institution is to ensure that the col-laborative management agreement is effective. It therefore needs tohave some form of legal and/or political status that enables it to enforceits decisions.

The institution would include representatives of all the major stake-holders in the conservation initiative. This would include the govern-mental agency in charge of management; the local residents in theircapacity as users of the resource and/or citizens interested in conserva-tion and/or citizens with unique knowledge and management skills; thelocal authorities; relevant development and conservation NGOs; andrelevant businesses and industries.

As a multi-stakeholder body with an overall knowledge of the initiativeand strong local representation, the Collaborative Management Institu-tion provides a most valuable option for the long-term sustainability ofthe conservation initiative. It may not be easy or inexpensive to set up anew institution, however, even if it can be developed within or alongsidean existing one.

For further reference See Questions 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9 and 1.2.10, Volume 1; Concept File 4.16(Collaborative management regimes), Volume 2; and Examples 18a-e inSection 6, Volume 2.

52

Collaborative management institution


Devolving the initiative to local institutions

If and when appropriate, and in a way which is compatible with thenational political, legal and institutional conditions, devolve the conser-vation initiative to local institutions. They then become the agents incharge. With necessary initial support, devolution can reduce localdependence on outside assistance, build local confidence and strengthenlocal management systems, thereby increasing the long-term sustain-ability of the initiative. And because the people who belong to localinstitutions live close to the resources concerned and their livelihoodtypically depends on these resources, they often have an intimateknowledge of the resources and their uses. This knowledge is besttapped if local institutions are given formal authority and security ofmaintaining authority over time. Devolution can reduce the cost ofmanaging the initiative (at least in the long term) while increasingaccountability to the community, since the staff and decision-makerslive among those affected by the initiative.

Devolution should not be undertaken until a local institution that canequitably represent local interests and competently carry out conserva-tion tasks has been identified, agreed upon and found willing to take onthe relevant responsibilities. The assistance required by the communityto undertake the activities expected of them should also have beenidentified and provided. Such assistance may include training, funding,legislative support and even a degree of ongoing managerial support.Political support for the devolution of authority is essential. Devolutionof responsibility will not work if the authority to make decisions isretained at the regional or national level.

A further note of warning: devolving management to the local level canmake the initiative more vulnerable to takeover by powerful local oroutside interests. This is a particularly serious risk when major busi-nesses and industries are involved.


See Questions 1.2.7 and 1.2.8, Volume 1; Concept File 4.18 (Decentral-izing and devolving government), Volume 2; and Examples 19a-d inSection 6, Volume 2.


53



With the stakeholders, and, if appropriate, the donors, undertake reg-ular participatory monitoring and evaluation to review objectives, ap-proach, activities and results. Monitoring measures progress or compli-ance; evaluation reflects on the past to make decisions about the future.

Monitoring enables problems to be identified and solutions to be soughtat an early stage. It can be carried out on a formal or semi-formal basisby both local people and staff of the initiative. Establish a system torecord the results over time; the resulting data can then be part of theevaluation process. Aspects to be monitored could include effectivenessof information systems; regularity of staff visits to communities; main-tenance of park boundaries; compliance with meeting schedules, etc.

Stakeholders could be given authority to monitor the quality of serviceprovided by the initiative, e.g., interactions between the local commu-nity and management; follow-up to complaints, etc. If stakeholders areresponsible for monitoring, there should be a process for feeding resultsback to management and a commitment on their part to take theseresults into account. Failure to do so will create frustration and distrustamong the stakeholders, which could hurt the initiative. Keep a recordof monitoring results, including recommendations to improve theinitiative's design, management and scope. Establish procedures andresponsibilities for ensuring that decisions are acted on.

Evaluation should reassess the design and objectives of the initiativeand assess its impact on the environment and the affected communi-ties. This can be done at planned intervals, when there is a crisis, or if aproblem becomes apparent. It should be conducted in open meetingswith as many stakeholders as possible. Solicit suggestions for improve-ment and discuss openly the pros and cons of several courses of action.

Prepare stakeholders for evaluation by providing them beforehand witha list of items. Seek their suggestions on matters to be included. Evalu-ate not just the initiative but also any changes in the communities sinceit was implemented. Keep questions broad so as not to confine theanalysis. Appropriate questions include: What is getting better? Whatis getting worse? Who is gaining from the initiative? Who is losing?

For further reference See Questions 3.2.5 and 3.2.6, Volume 1; Monitoring and Evaluation inSection 5, Volume 2; and Examples 20a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.

54

Participatory monitoring and evaluation


Many years of experience in development and conservation initiativeshave shown that conservation and the needs of local people cannot beaddressed independently of one another. Development work that ne-glects the sound management of natural resources is building on shift-ing sands. Conservation work that attempts to take precedence over theindividual and communal concerns of local people is likely to be assuccessful as the proverbial refrigerator sale in the Arctic.

Combining the two — by pursuing conservation and providing for localneeds through the same initiatives and activities — calls for greatingenuity, sociocultural sensitivity, sound economic judgment andsufficient time to develop the optimum solutions that work in uniquecontexts. Importantly, it also calls for the active participation of therelevant stakeholders. Only local people, in fact, can effectively identifyboth their needs and the specific compromises that would satisfy themwhile safeguarding conservation. Only local people can bring to aninitiative the wealth of local knowledge and skills they possess.

As a start, the management team could consider local livelihoods inrelation to the area's environmental resources. Several of the questions,indicators and options for action in this section will explore this topicand set it within a specific socio-political and cultural context. Byfitting into existing livelihood systems, the initiative will stand a muchbetter chance of being owned by local people. At best, however, sociallysustainable initiatives go beyond this, and provide new opportunities togenerate benefits and economic returns. These, in turn, can help toaddress local needs and provide incentives to conservation. Non-eco-nomic benefits should not be underestimated. They may relate to socialstatus, security of tenure, political autonomy, cultural and religiousvalues, and overall quality of life. In some instances, safeguardingindigenous territories from exploitation by newcomers may be a suffi-cient incentive for local support.

Two basic approaches have been used by conservation initiatives torespond to the needs and interests of local people:

1. 'De-coupling' the interests of the local residents from the naturalresources to be conserved. Thus, projects in buffer zones promotealternative income-generating activities, such as a plantation offast-growing trees that relieve the pressure on forest timber, cash-crop initiatives, poultry farming, etc. This is meant to shift theeconomic interests of local people away from the exploitation ofresources in a protected area. Similarly, the construction of aroad, school or clinic may be offered to the locals as compensationfor loss of access to natural resources. Also, better farming prac-tices may be promoted in the lands surrounding a conservationinitiative, so that local people are less dependent on its resourcesfor their livelihood. This approach, which often calls for substan-tial investments from outside, has been the one most commonlyadopted.

2. 'Coupling' the interests of the local residents with the conserva-tion objectives. Ecotourism, for instance, brings revenues as longas the local environment is well preserved and worth beingvisited. Selling game trophies to hunters is viable and lucrative aslong as the local habitat is capable of sustaining an abundantwildlife population. Medicinal plants can be collected in the wildand sold as long as they are not over-exploited. And so on. With

56

2.1Addressinglocal needs inconservation


this second approach we can also include initiatives such asgame-ranching or wildlife-raising projects (such as crocodile,iguana or butterfly farms). Raising a population of a wild andpossibly endangered species in captivity may be a positive contri-bution to maintaining that species in the wild.

Whether a 'coupling' solution is to be preferred to a 'de-coupling' one, orwhether a combination of the two is best, can be established only withina specific ecological and socio-economic context. Yet, in all cases we canbe sure of one fact: it is not easy to identify ways in which conservationinitiatives can produce benefits and economic returns (the 'coupling'approach).

For millennia, rural communities have evolved careful ways of produc-ing from the land while caring for its integrity and thus sustainingproduction. Today, changes in technology, population dynamics and thewidespread shift from subsistence to market-oriented production havestrained many of those relationships. For protected areas, in particular,generating economic benefits to be shared among local stakeholders isthe exception rather than the rule. Yet, in most situations these ben-efits must be apparent — locally and non-locally — to obtain supportfor the conservation initiative. This is the most daunting challengefacing social sustainability in conservation. Some responses to thechallenge will be explored in this section of the resource set.

Such responses can only flourish within a favourable political andeconomic environment. People have to feel secure in terms of access toresources (security of tenure), and confident of being able to benefittomorrow from investments made today (political stability). Peopleneed to have access to financial means (e.g., credit) and, ideally, to beallowed to use as collateral the natural resources they safeguard withtheir work. There have to be fair and intelligently-regulated markets,which use incentives and disincentives to assign values to naturalresources for their long-term and functional returns, as well as to thehealth, welfare and culture of people. This section will consider theseissues.

This section will also touch on the matter of equity in conservation.Many conservation initiatives involve a range of costs and benefits thatare too often unevenly — and inequitably — distributed. Frequently, forinstance, local communities with customary rights are forbidden accessto resources, and later see such access signed over to commercial com-panies. Too often, restricted use for pastoralists brings them hardshipwhile agriculturalists gain from an improved water supply from theprotected area. Situations such as these are at the root of many failuresin conservation.

An effective legislative and regulatory framework would help to preventinequities by assigning the costs and benefits of conservation in moreequitable ways. This could be done by recognizing existing and custom-ary rights; decreasing rather than increasing socio-economic differen-tiation; and distributing benefits in proportion to both costs sustainedand effective inputs of labour, land, capital, etc. A sustainable initiativewould carefully regulate this equitable distribution of costs and ben-efits. Fairness to individuals, not only to user groups or communities, isimportant to stimulate people to engage in a conservation initiative andto promote long-term investments.

By fitting into existing livelihoodsystems, the initiative will standa much better chance of beingowned by local people. At best,however, socially sustainableinitiatives go beyond this, andprovide new opportunities togenerate benefits andeconomic returns.

57


2.2

Key Questions

Key question 2.2.1

How do the natural resources of theconservation initiative contribute to thelivelihood of local people?

• How dependent are local people on such natural resources in terms of:food (e.g., by hunting, fishing or using land for agriculture)? Water?Shelter? Fuel? Medicines? Income? Employment? Basic resources intimes of emergency? Credit? Other survival needs (as defined by localpeople)?

• Who actually harvests and uses the natural resources? Are somespecific groups more dependent than others on the use of local re-sources? Which groups (e.g., consider groups of different gender, ethnic-ity, wealth, education, age, employment status, residence with respectto the boundaries of the conservation initiative)? Are they all dependenton the same resource(s) or on different ones?

• Do the professional team members consider these stakeholders asbeing different or the same (e.g., women in a community versus men ina community, fishermen versus agriculturists, and so on)? How so?Why?

• Is local livelihood put in jeopardy by the conservation initiative? Aresome groups particularly at risk? Are resettlements involved? If so, howdoes the initiative protect or compensate people? Does the compensa-tion provide for a sustainable livelihood strategy or only for a tempo-rary satisfaction of needs? Does it create a dependence on externalresources?


Biodiversity and rural livelihoodLocal knowledge in conservationSocial actors and stakeholdersGender concerns in conservationPopulation dynamics and conservationIndigenous peoples and protected areasPrimary environmental careSocial concerns in resettlement programmes

58


How do the natural resources of theconservation initiative help meet people'scultural, religious and identity needs?

• How dependent are local people on the natural resources in terms ofsocial customs? Cultural practices? Religious and ceremonial practices?Wealth and status? Security? Privacy? Recreation? Other identity needs(as defined by local people)?

• Are some specific groups more dependent than others? Which groups(e.g., consider groups of different gender, caste, wealth, education, age,employment status)? Are they all dependent on the same resource(s) oron different ones?

• Do the professional team members consider these stakeholders asbeing different or the same (e.g., people of different religious back-ground)? How so? Why?

• Do sites or species have particular cultural/spiritual significance? Arethese protected in the indigenous or customary system of resourcemanagement (e.g., sacred groves, ancestral domains)? Do some groupsconsider themselves owners or custodians of given habitats or re-sources? Are there specific myths, rites and cultural habits related tothe natural resources?

• Is the local culture or social structure significantly affected by theconservation initiative (e.g., by altering resource sharing patterns)? Ifso, is the management team discussing with people a way ofre-planning the initiative or compensating them?

Key question 2.2.2


Social actors and stakeholdersLocal knowledge in conservationApplied ethics in conservationIndigenous resource management systemsIndigenous peoples and protected areasLocal knowledge for conservation-Population dynamics and conservation


59


Key question 2.2.3 Do local people perceive any need toconserve natural resources, specificspecies, habitats, etc.?

• What are the key problems currently concerning the local people? Isthe conservation initiative contributing towards solving these prob-lems? Is it making or will it make any problem worse?

• Do local people perceive any resource/environmental problems? Forinstance, is there recognized pressure on land or other resources? Is anylocal resource becoming more scarce (and/or more expensive in localmarkets)? Are specific species and habitats in danger of disappearing?

• If so, what do local people see as the causes of these problems? Dothey see them as being of local or non-local origin? Do they see them assudden (e.g., a natural disaster) or as structural and ongoing? Do theysee them as related to poverty, or related to wealth and power? Do theysee them as being at all associated with population dynamics (naturalincrease or decrease, migration to and from the local area)?

• Do the local people accept that they can/should do something aboutthe problems or do they only see it as a government responsibility?

• Do local people implement/promote/propose/prefer some specificsolutions to the resource/environmental problems they perceive?

• Do local people perceive any barriers to solutions? What specifically?

• Is there any local debate on trade-offs between conservation andhuman needs? Are there any major interest groups? If yes, which ones?Are some in agreement or in open conflict with the conservationinitiative?

• Is the local environmental situation perceived differently by differentsocial groups/stakeholders?


Biodiversity and rural livelihoodIndigenous resource management systemsPopulation dynamics and conservationPoverty, wealth, and environmental degradationEquity in conservationEconomic valuation in conservationLocal knowledge in conservationPrimary environmental care

60


Are or were there indigenous or customaryresource management systems in the areaand are they being affected by theconservation initiative?

• If yes, what do (did) they regulate? Access to resources? Decisionsover access? Resource-use patterns and limits? Seasonal use? Fallowsystems? Types of use? Distribution of products? Negotiation of rulesand management of conflicts? Other?

• Who is (was) in charge of making important decisions (e.g., resourceallocation, labour sharing, conflict management practices)? Are (were)there traditional chiefs, councils of elders, elected councils? Are (were)social sanctions part of traditional management systems? Are (were)there social incentives for sound management and use of resources?

• Are (were) these systems effective? Do (did) they include some special-ized knowledge of biodiversity (e.g., relationships between soil typesand crop varieties, uses of medicinal plants, inter-cropping patterns)?Do (did) they include zoning to distinguish acceptable land uses? Do(did) they include ecologically-damaging practices?

• Are there evident trends affecting the indigenous or customary re-source management systems? What are they? Are they favourable ordetrimental for conservation?

• Does the conservation initiative incorporate/support the indigenousand customary systems of resource management (in part or entirely)?

• Are there major differences in resource management knowledge andskills among different stakeholders? How could these affect the conser-vation initiative?

• Is there a local conservation ethic? Is there a sense of moral obliga-tion to protect the land and other resources for future generations?

• In general, is the conservation initiative consistent with or in contrastto the aspirations of stakeholders and local communities?

Key question 2.2.4


Local institutions for resource managementIndigenous resource management systemsApplied ethics in conservationIndigenous people and protected areasBiodiversity and rural livelihoodPoverty, wealth and environmental degradationLocal knowledge in conservationSustainable use of wildlife


61


Key question 2.2.5 Does the conservation initiative affectaccess to land or resources and thecontrol over them for one or morestakeholders?

• What is the ownership status of the body of resources at stake in theconservation initiative? Is it state property? Is it under the jurisdictionof a central or local administrative body? Is it subject to more than oneform of legal status (e.g., national park and indigenous people's re-serve)? Is any part of it private or communal property? If yes, is expro-priation foreseen? With what compensation?

• Are there differences of view about who owns the land and resources?Are there any unresolved boundary conflicts or conflicts over rules ofaccess?

• Are there traditional patterns of resource use by local groups that willbe restricted or stopped by the conservation initiative? With whatcompensation? Are alternatives provided?

• Whatever the ownership status, is it respected? Are there problems ofencroachment and illegal use of resources? Is tenure secured? Areinheritance patterns clear or controversial?

• Does the country have a system of recognized rights and regulationsregarding access to and tenure of resources? Is 'communal property' arecognized ownership regime, or are only state and private propertyrecognized? Are 'indigenous territories' recognized?

• Are there land registries or other records of access rights to re-sources? Are there specific courts and tribunals where disputes overaccess and tenure can be discussed and resolved? If conflict over accessto resources predated the conservation initiative, how will that beaffected?


Equity in conservationCommon property, communal property and open access regimesIndigenous resource management systemsIndigenous peoples and protected areasGovernance and rule of lawPrimary environmental careBiodiversity and rural livelihood

62


Are there major economic activities(e.g., mining, timber extraction) in thearea which do or could affect theconservation initiative?

• What are these activities? What is their time horizon (short-termexploitation or sustainable exploitation, processing, etc.)? What is theattitude of the people or companies in control of the activities towardsthe conservation initiative?

• What costs are involved in protecting the conservation area againstthe negative impact of the economic activities?

• Are the economic activities clearly beneficial to local people andgroups? In what ways? How many jobs do they provide (directly andindirectly)? Are there any negative impacts on human health and/or thesocial environment (e.g., frequent instances of violent behaviour, boomand bust in the local economy)?

• If the activities benefit some stakeholders and affect others (andconservation) in a negative way, are the relevant issues and conflictswell-known and understood? Are they dealt with in an open manner?Who decides on the key matters?

Key question 2.2.6

Concept Files, Volume 2Poverty, wealth and environmental degradationEconomic valuation in conservationIncentives and disincentives to conservationConflicts in conservationJobs in conservationSocial actors and stakeholders


63


Key question 2.2.7 Are there incentives or disincentives toconservation in the local context?

• What types of incentives exist to encourage local stakeholders tosupport and contribute to the conservation initiative? Are there finan-cial incentives (e.g., taxation, matching grants, subsidies, creditschemes, compensation programmes), social incentives (prestige, use offacilities, access to services), or others? Are these incentives known andavailable to all without discrimination? Can they be enhanced, mademore widespread, made better known?

• What types of disincentives prevent local stakeholders from support-ing and contributing to the conservation initiative (e.g., are therecommercial pressures that prompt people to see conservation as eco-nomically damaging; is there any law assigning rights to people who'opened up' land by cutting down trees and shrubs)? Can the disincen-tives be minimized or eliminated?

• Can people afford to contribute to conservation? Do they have accessto credit, in particular credit that values the management of naturalresources in a sustainable way? Do they have access to technical assist-ance, training or technology inputs when they need them?

• Are political incentives (gaining a share in decision-making power)likely to encourage stakeholders to contribute to the conservationinitiative?


Incentives and disincentives to conservationCompensation and substitution programmesJobs in conservationPrimary environmental care

64


What are the actual costs and benefits ofthe conservation initiative and how arethey distributed among the stakeholders?

• What is the economic value of the resources and products lost to usersbecause of the conservation initiative (loss of access, loss of trade,damage by wildlife, etc.)? What are the other costs suffered by them(e.g., loss of employment opportunities, loss of land, constraints on localbusiness and family income)? Are these felt by all or by some groups inparticular?

• What are the economic (and non-economic) benefits accruing tostakeholders because of the conservation initiative (job opportunities,social services, soil protection, clean water, abundance of wildlife, etc.)?Are these distributed to all or to some groups in particular? Do the localpeople see these benefits as real and/or easily achievable?

• Do local people see these benefits as related to conservation efforts?Do they see them as linked to investments and costs related to theinitiative?

• As a whole, who benefits and who loses? Are trade-offs known andclear to all? Have the trade-offs been negotiated and agreed upon in anyway? Are alternative opportunities provided to affected stakeholders?Are new social conflicts present/expected as a result of the initiative?

• Is the initiative worsening social inequalities (e.g., making poorpeople poorer, marginal people more marginalized, women less power-ful)? Or is it, on the contrary, attempting to compensate for such in-equalities?

Key question 2.2.8


Equity in conservationGender concerns in conservationIncentives and disincentives to conservationEconomic valuation in conservationSocial concerns in resettlement programmesJobs in conservationBiodiversity and rural livelihoodSocial actors and stakeholders


65


Key question 2.2.9 What contributions can the stakeholdersmake to the conservation initiative?

• Can the stakeholders offer unique local knowledge and skills for themanagement of the resources included in the conservation initiative?For instance, do they have their own ways of classifying and qualifyingnatural resources and habitats? Do local people possess their own waysof monitoring resources?

• Can the stakeholders offer skilled and/or unskilled labour? Can theycontribute as a community or as a group, (e.g., by monitoring localbiodiversity, surveying for unauthorized access, fire and other hazards)?Can they provide resources and facilities (e.g., for storage, transporta-tion, etc.)?

• Would stakeholders be willing and able to take on the responsibilityof providing the conservation initiative with some knowledge, skills,labour or resources, and formalize that responsibility in an agreementwith other stakeholders?

• Where outside destructive forces exist, would local stakeholders bewilling and able to provide a counter to them (for example by massmobilization in support of the conservation initiative)?

• To date, has the management team adequately considered/acted onany inputs provided by local stakeholders?

• Can/would stakeholders be able to manage the conservation initiativeindependently?


Local knowledge for conservationIndigenous resource management systemsCollaborative management regimesPrimary environmental careApplied ethics in conservationLocal institutions for resource management

66


Are there solid social and economicopportunities to link conservationobjectives with providing for local needs?

• Is the conservation initiative compatible with the sustainable use ofnatural resources (e.g., timber and non-timber forest products, fisher-ies, fodder, agricultural land, wildlife, etc.)? Has the initiative identi-fied/incorporated such sustainable use options? With what results?

• Where conservation objectives and existing resource uses are notcompatible, are there viable alternatives to the latter? Are they accept-able to the stakeholders? Can these alternatives help to retain/encour-age a stake in conservation?

• Is the conservation initiative compatible with the creation of local jobopportunities and income generation activities (e.g., jobs in park man-agement, ecotourism ventures, local business, primary environmentalcare projects)?

• Will compensation (e.g., economic or via complementary programmesin health, education, adult training, credit schemes) and incentives belikely and sufficient to make the conservation initiative appealing forlocal stakeholders? Are the links between the incentives and the initia-tive clear and well-established? Are the economic options provided bythe conservation initiative financially attractive compared with theimmediate profits from resource exploitation and/or other non-conservation options?

• Are there factors that prevent stakeholders from deriving an incomefrom the sustainable use of resources (e.g., trade restrictions, animalrights legislation, etc.)?

•Are there economic conditions (e.g., international market prices of alocally-produced commodity) affecting local choices that have an envi-ronmental impact? Can anything be done to buffer or minimize suchexternal conditions?

Key question 2.2.10


Biodiversity and rural livelihoodPrimary environmental careSustainable use of wildlifeSustainable farming, forestry and fishing practicesCompensation and substitution programmesEcotourismJobs in conservation


67


2.3Indicators oflocal needsbeing addressed

IndicatorsPercentage of local people (orporportion of stakeholders) whosee the conservation initiativeas acceptable and/or convenient

All indicators of socio-economicand health status, including in-come per household, literacy,employment rates, morbidityand mortality, etc.

All of the above in gender-specific,age-specific, ethnic-specific, orclass-specific terms (e.g., socio-economic and health status ofmen versus women, ethnicmajority vs ethnic minority, etc.)

Extent of socio-economicdifferentiation among localgroups

Local prices of basic foodstuffsand products

Local prices of natural resourceswhich can be extracted in theconservation area

Trends of all the above indicatorswith respect to the conservationinitiative. Are matters improvingor getting worse since theestablishment of the initiative?

Warning flags

People willing to face sanc-tions and fines to opposethe conservation initiative(e.g., encroachment onprotected areas)

The majority of local people do notsee any need for the initiative

Strong antagonism or distrustamong stakeholders (e.g., localpeople and project or governmentagents) based on past experience

Severe poverty and poor health insome sectors of society whileeconomically valuable resourcesare protected by the conservationinitiative

Some local people and groups arebenefiting from the conservationinitiative, while others are missingout entirely

Endangered wildlife from theconservation initiative can fetch avery high price in local markets

Access to the resources comprisedin the conservation initiative isdenied to locals but permitted toexploiters with strong economic/political connections (e.g., thegovernment signed a contract witha commercial company)

68


Indicators Warning flags

69

Changes in local land availabilityand resource use to accommodatethe conservation initiative

Forced resettlement ofpeople is envisaged/planned/carried out

People migrate out of thearea due to reduced accessto resources

Indicators of local populationdynamics (migration, fertility,mortality). Trends of such indica-tors versus availability of landand natural resources and withrespect to the initiative

Increasing population (becausemigration and/or natural growthin the face of stable or decreasineconomic options for an acceptablquality of life

Extent of local knowledge,skills and other contributionsincorporated in the conservationinitiative

Strong contrast between somemanagement practices recom-mended by the initiative andcustomary/traditional ones

Adjustments of the initiative inresponse to needs/expectationsexpressed by locals (e.g., regardingrules of access to resources)

Economic (and non-economic) valueof benefits from the conservationinitiative directly accruing to localstakeholders

Land uses in conflict with theconservation initiative are con-tinued and/or intensified



The following options for action offer some ideas on how to provide forlocal needs in a conservation initiative. They need to be considered inthe light of particular circumstances, depending on which they may ormay not be appropriate. You will undoubtedly think of other options aswell. It is important to remember that the list of options for actionsshould not be viewed as a step-by-step procedure, although it is subdi-vided in the order in which options would be logically considered (forinstance, you may want to develop a compensation programme onlyafter having completed an assessment of social impact). Also, some ofthe options below are alternatives to one another and need to be com-pared in terms of appropriateness to the particular context.

The list of options is subdivided into four groups according to the typeof activity. These are:

Understanding local management systems, local claims, needs andpotential conservation impacts

2.4.1 Review of indigenous/customary systems of access toresources and resource management

2.4.2 Participatory review of customary claims to land andnatural resources

2.4.3 Review of national policies and laws affecting resourcemanagement

2.4.4 Assessment of local uses of natural resources2.4.5 Social impact assessment

Planning to integrate conservation and the meeting of local needs

2.4.6 Open meetings among stakeholders2.4.7 Special events and 'ideas fairs'2.4.8 Visits to successful conservation/development initiatives2.4.9 Building upon local knowledge and skills in resource

management2.4.10 Participatory planning to integrate local needs2.4.11 Zoning to separate incompatible land uses

Generating benefits for local stakeholders

2.4.12 Primary environmental care (PEC) projects2.4.13 Jobs for local people2.4.14 Local distribution of revenues from the conservation

initiative2.4.15 Compensation and substitution programmes

Enhancing the sustainahility of benefits to stakeholders

2.4.16 Feasibility studies2.4.17 Linking benefits with efforts in conservation2.4.18 Supportive links with relevant services and programmes2.4.19 Monitoring land tenure and land values in sensitive areas2.4.20 Incentives to conservation accountability2.4.21 Biodiversity monitoring and area surveillance by local

people2.4.22 Integrating the conservation initiative with local

empowerment in welfare, health and population dynamics

70


Revieiw of indigenous/customarf systemsof access to resources and resourcemanagement

Carry out a comprehensive review of past and present systems of accessto resources and resource management. Pay particular attention touses of resources for local livelihood; established rights of use; localinstitutions in charge; demarcation of territories occupied and used byindigenous residents; and mechanisms for negotiating agreements andmanaging conflicts. Involve local people in the review, and discuss withthem ways to integrate the effective components of the indigenous/customary systems with the conservation initiative.

The review may provide both a sensible basis for conservation decisionsand a set of baseline data for monitoring the benefits and impacts of theinitiative. This type of review is best carried out by people who aretrusted by and have a mandate to undertake the work from the rel-evant communities. Indigenous people may be rightly reluctant torelease information about some of their customs and traditions topeople whom they do not know or trust. The team should also have asound understanding of the culture, language and traditions of the localcommunities, to be able to interpret the information provided.


See Questions 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.2 (Indigenousresource management systems) and 4.10 (Local knowledge for conserva-tion), Volume 2; and Examples 21a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.


71



Organize a participatory mapping session. This exercise can be used toidentify land tenure boundaries; areas and resources used by the localpeople for different purposes; and/or areas where the local peopleestimate there are environmental problems. (The latter can be focusedon afterward to discuss how the problems can be addressed.)

In some cases, the people themselves can draw a map of the intendedarea and features (see the "Participatory Mapping" tool in Vol. 2). Inothers, a simple drawing or an aerial photo can be provided by themanagement of the conservation initiative, to which the people can addas they see fit. Each person present can contribute and identify what-ever information is required. It is important that the map contributorsinclude different stakeholders (e.g., women, the elderly, youth, differentethnic and religious groups, land-owners and the landless, businesspeople, local authorities) and that several sessions are held, so thatdifferent groups have the time to review and discuss the claims ofothers.

For further reference See Questions 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, Volume 1; Information Gathering andAssessment in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 22a-c in Section 6,Volume 2.

72

Participatory review of customary claimsto land and natural resources


Review of national policies and lawsaffecting resource management

Carry out a review of national and regional laws and policies affectingnational resource management (e.g., laws regulating ownership andaccess to resources; codes establishing what types of local institutionscan have access to credit or enter into partnerships with the govern-ment; market regulations, etc.). Assess the stability, compatibility anddegree of enforcement of these laws and policies. Involve local stake-holders in the review and, as necessary, in identifying policy changesthat would favour both them and the conservation initiative. Make theresults of the review available to all stakeholders.

The review will provide key information on the capacity of currentpolicies and laws to integrate local needs with conservation objectives.It will also highlight areas where changes are needed, and whethercontradictions exist.

Involving the community in the review process — even if mostlythrough dissemination of the resulting information — will increase thelevel of knowledge and awareness among local people of relevant poli-cies and laws, how they are affected by them, and how they can usethem.

Too often, policy and legislation concerning natural resource manage-ment are both vague and poorly known. On crucial matters, it may beadvisable to seek legal interpretation and advice.


See Questions 1.2.7, 1.2.8 and 1.2.9, Volume 1; Concept File 4.17 (Gov-ernance and the rule of law), Volume 2; and Examples 23a-d in Section6, Volume 2.


73


Option for action 2.4.4 Assessment of local uses of naturalresources

Prior to setting up the conservation initiative, undertake an assessmentof the local uses of natural resources in the area and estimate theirecological impacts. Assess whether the area can absorb these impacts,or whether they are actually or potentially damaging. The assessmentshould be done in a transparent manner, involving both local users andindependent experts. Wherever possible, use research techniques inwhich local people can actively participate. This will help to buildknowledge and awareness about the environment and increase localskills. It will also increase the local community's sense of ownership ofthe study's findings and recommendations.

The study will help to identify the true causes of environmental dam-age; the local activities which help to retain/enhance biodiversity; theactivities that are compatible with conservation objectives; and theactivities that are not compatible and therefore need modifications/alternatives.

The study described in this option can be technically complicated,especially if several local uses of a resource have combined or contradic-tory effects. In such cases, singling out the effect of any one such use —and thus assessing its impact — may be quite difficult.

For further reference See Questions 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.9 (Biodi-versity and rural livelihood) and 4.14 (Common property, communalproperty and open access regimes), Volume 2; and Examples 24a-f inSection 6, Volume 2.

74


Social impact assessment

Prior to implementing the conservation initiative, undertake a socialimpact assessment (SIA) involving the various local actors potentiallyaffected. The assessment should provide a basis for integrating theinitiative with the resource use practices and values of the local com-munity; build on traditional systems of resource management anddecision-making; identify expected costs and benefits and their recipi-ent groups; and design effective information and consultation processes.

Include an analysis of local resource users; local knowledge and prac-tices in relation to resources; scope and capacity of decision-makingstructures; and local wealth distribution, health status and literacylevels. Specifically include an analysis of the initiative's potentialimpacts on local health, nutrition and population dynamics. Considergender/age/ethnic/class matters and vulnerable groups (e.g., refugees).

The assessment should help clarify the initiative's objectives and themeans of achieving them. It should also form a strategy for ongoingparticipation of stakeholders, for developing commitment and capacityat appropriate levels, and for mitigation plans where adverse socialimpacts are expected. Recommendations should be discussed with theaffected groups to ensure that they are appropriate and acceptable. TheSIA should include details on implementing and monitoring the recom-mended measures to reduce the adverse impacts on local groups.

By anticipating the potential effects, measures can be planned toreduce or avoid the negative impacts while creating opportunities torealize the potential benefits. Benefits can take a variety of forms inaddition to income-generating activities. Enhanced biomass, improvedwater supply, recognized and secure access to some wild resources,cultural respect and protection, social rewards and returns for tradi-tional knowledge used by the wider community should all be exploredas potential positive effects associated with the conservation initiative.

A possible constraint to undertaking an SIA is that it requires a rela-tively high degree of skill in social analysis and community consulta-tion; it can also be time-consuming and costly. A potential problem israising community expectations which cannot be met by making recom-mendations that are unrealistic (e.g., for political or economic reasons).This problem can be reduced by involving decision-makers in the SIA.


See Questions 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.8 and 2.2.10, Volume 1; Concept File 4.8(Applied ethics in conservation), Volume 2; Information Gathering andAssessment in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 25a-c in Section 6,Volume 2.

75



Open meetings among stakeholders

Organize a series of open meetings to identify the expected or currentcosts and benefits (financial and otherwise) of the conservation initia-tive. Discuss them and find ways to distribute them as equitably aspossible among the various stakeholders. For instance, a meeting couldbe called to examine in detail a zoning system envisaged by the initia-tive, as well as the limitations and rules regarding access to resources.Promote the active participation of stakeholders by facilitating, ratherthan controlling, the meetings. Intervene in discussions only if argu-ments continue for too long, if some parties dominate the discussion, orwhen the stakeholders run out of ideas or request further information.If the discussion is going well, let it flow.

This process makes the costs and benefits of the initiative explicit; itidentifies potential and existing conflicts and gathers ideas on how theycan be resolved through alternative activities. Care must be taken notto raise unrealistic expectations. People will usually place high hopeson the benefits they perceive as 'promised' by the initiative.

Care must also be taken to ensure that the more powerful stakeholdersdo not dominate the meetings, seeking to protect their interests at theexpense of others. Stakeholders who are vulnerable and/or discrimi-nated against may be much less capable or willing to stand up so thattheir needs are appropriately considered.

For further reference See Social Communication, and Information Gathering and Assessmentin Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 26a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.

76



Special events and 'ideas fairs'

Organize special events to elicit new ideas for initiatives to link locallivelihood with conservation. Establish prizes for the best ideas ('ideasfair') and activities, and link the event with sports matches, marketoccasions, religious celebrations, etc. to give visibility and spirit to theoccasion. Local newspapers and radio stations could promote the eventand support conservation awareness. Video shows on conservationissues could be used as a stimulus to generating ideas. Competitionsand prizes — not only for ideas but also for concrete achievements (e.g.,largest variety of seeds of a given food crop, most efficient irrigationsystem, largest area reforested by a community) — would link the eventwith a general promotion of conservation awareness and capacity.

Special events tend to attract a large number of people, especially inisolated areas where gatherings are relatively rare. A special eventwhich incorporates fun, entertainment and competition is likely toreceive great visibility. Such an event would provide an opportunity toinform and educate, and to gather and discuss local perspectives andconcrete options for action.

See Questions 1.2.9, 2.2.9 and 2.2.10, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.10(Local knowledge in conservation) and 4.29 (Cross-cultural communica-tion and local media), Volume 2; Social Communication in Section 5,Volume 2; and Examples 27a-e in Section 6, Volume 2.


77



Option for action 2.4.8 Visits to successful conservation/development initiatives

Organize visits for local people to areas with successful examples ofconservation initiatives that manage to meet local needs. The visits arenot to promote the initiatives but to help people come up with ideas onhow they could generate benefits from their own local conservationefforts. It is therefore important to let the people control the discussionsand the focus of the visits.

Organize follow-up sessions so that those who took part in the visitscan tell others what they have seen and learned. Encourage discussion(possibly with the help of audio-visual aids) about ways to adapt theideas in practice in the visited community to their own situation.Encourage planning sessions to follow.

Seeing the successes of others is an excellent way to stimulate ideasand action. Discussing the pitfalls that can occur with other communi-ties can also avoid costly and disheartening mistakes. However, caremust be taken to avoid people getting carried away with enthusiasmabout the success of others and buying into models inappropriate fortheir particular area.

In addition to stimulating options for generating benefits and meetingtheir own needs, the visits can also provide the spark to establish localor regional networking groups that pool resources and technical knowl-edge to solve common problems. These networks, which are geared tofield-based experiences, can also get involved in advocacy and providingkey inputs for policy-making.


78

See Question 2.2.10, Volume 1; and Examples 28a-e in Section 6,Volume 2.


Building upon local knowledge and skills inresource management

Organize retreats, information exchange sessions and development anddemonstration programmes to help local people build upon and improvetheir current management of natural resources. Themes could includeenhanced sustainability and efficiency of use, enhanced productivity,more effective marketing, improved control of marketing procedures,product substitution, alternatives to destructive practices, agro-forestryand agro-ecology practices, etc. Value local knowledge and skills, andfollow the inclinations and advice of the local people.

This approach increases the local community's sense of confidence in,and willingness to cooperate with, the conservation initiative. It buildsupon the pride and self-respect of local people and is effective in mobi-lizing local support for conservation. Most importantly, it may providesome crucial added skills and capabilities that will result in concretelocal benefits.

A problem sometimes encountered with retreats is that they require aconsiderable investment of time. This can limit the number of stafffrom the initiative and the local people who can afford to participate.

Care needs to be taken not to follow local advice uncritically — not alllocal practices are environmentally sound. Where local requests cannotbe met by the professional team (e.g., about allocation of budget re-sources), a proper exchange of views and discussion should be held anddecisions should be made in a transparent way.


See Questions 2.2.4 and 2.2.9, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.2 (Indigenousresource management systems), 4.3 (Local institutions for resourcemanagement), 4.9 (Biodiversity and rural livelihood) and 4.10 (Localknowledge in conservation), Volume 2; and Examples 29a-e in Section 6,Volume 2.


79


Option for action 2.4.10 Participatory planning to integratelocal needs

Carry out a series of participatory planning exercises with variousstakeholders, to identify ways by which local livelihood options can bemade compatible with and mutually supportive of conservation objec-tives. Assist by offering facilities for the meetings, facilitation, examplesof options, literature, links with groups and institutions that can pro-vide various kinds of support (legal, financial, technical, etc.) and so on.

These exercises are sure to enrich the planning of the conservationinitiative by increasing access to local knowledge, information andskills and by ensuring the initiative does not neglect the perspectivesand interests of those people most likely to pay the costs of the conser-vation initiative. In fact, participatory planning provides a powerfulmechanism to work out an equitable share of such costs and benefits.

The outcome of these meetings could vary from plans for primaryenvironmental care projects to recommendations for activities andmodifications of the conservation initiative to better harmonize it withthe requirements of local livelihood.

For further reference See Questions 1.2.6, 2.2.3, 2.2.8 and 2.2.10, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.19(Primary environmental care), 4.20 (Sustainable use of wildlife), 4.21(Sustainable farming, forestry and fishing practices) and 4.22 (Ecotour-ism), Volume 2; Planning, and Conflict Management in Section 5;Volume 2; and Examples 30a-e in Section 6, Volume 2.

80


Zoning to separate incompatible land uses

Introduce a zoning system to provide flexibility in the land uses allowedin different parts of the area covered by the conservation initiative. Forinstance, different zones can define areas where certain species can behunted or harvested, and other areas where the same species arestrictly protected. Involve stakeholders in defining the boundaries ofthe zones, the uses allowed in each zone and the conditions which willapply to specific uses. Usually, a zoning plan is a crucial component of aCollaborative Management Agreement among different stakeholders.

Combine this exercise with a review of customary resource manage-ment systems and resource-use patterns. At best, the new system willreinforce the customary system and minimize the detrimental effects ofresource protection on the livelihood of user groups. Stakeholders canbe granted different rights at different times even within the samezoning system. For instance, indigenous peoples may be granted specialaccess to some resources in recognition of their customary rights andsound use practices.


See Options 2.4.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.10 and 1.4.17, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.2(Indigenous resource management systems) and 4.16 (Collaborativemanagement regimes), Volume 2; Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; andExamples 31a-d in Section 6, Volume 2.


81


Option for action 2.4.12 Primary environmental care (PEC) projects

Help local people develop their own primary environmental care (PEC)projects. PEC projects combine local environmental care with meetinglocal needs. The projects would be run by local organized groups andcould be assisted by or linked with the conservation initiative in severalways. For instance, some staff of the conservation initiative can act as'matchmakers' to assist local groups in obtaining the inputs which theythemselves identify as being crucial for projects to succeed. Such inputsmay include credit, specific technologies, political support, trainingcourses, networking with similar projects or study visits, as well asspecific information and advice.

In some cases a rotating fund can be established to support the bestcommunity-generated projects that meet PEC criteria. This is particu-larly appropriate when capital is available (e.g., through a trust fund)to support both environmental conservation and people's welfare.

PEC projects build local confidence and strengthen the capacity andskills of local organizations. When they are closely associated with theconservation initiative, they effectively enhance the local support andthus the sustainability of the initiative itself.

For further reference See Questions 1.2.5, 2.2.3 and 2.2.10 and Options 1.4.15 and 2.4.10,Volume 1; Concept File 4.19 (Primary environmental care), Volume 2;and Examples 32a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.

82


Jobs for local people

Provide jobs within the conservation initiative for local people, espe-cially for those disadvantaged by it. If necessary, establish trainingprogrammes for people to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. Ifnot enough jobs are available in the conservation initiative, explorewhether they can be provided elsewhere, and facilitate the hiring oflocal residents (e.g., by assisting them in obtaining information, trans-portation, training, etc.). It may also be possible to create new jobs,such as recycling waste or producing materials locally rather thanimporting them.

As well as providing a means to replace income lost through restrictionsimposed by the initiative, creating jobs for local people can be good forthe long-term sustainability and work-force stability of the initiative.Local people are usually more committed than outsiders to staying inthe area. Also, employment in work which is dependent on the successof the initiative increases the sense of ownership of and commitment tothe initiative within the local community. Employing local people canalso increase local control of the initiative and promote the use of localknowledge.

In areas where there is a shortage of employment opportunities, theremay be intense lobbying and competition for jobs among various localgroups. If not carefully handled, this may damage the relationshipbetween the initiative and the local communities. Managers shouldavoid employing relatives and friends. Salaries should be compatiblewith local pay scales to avoid creating major economic disparities in thecommunity and thus promoting envy and conflict.

Jobs established on the expectation they will be permanent (becausethey are replacing other sources of income lost as a result of the initia-tive) should be financially solid. Failure to sustain such jobs could leavethe local people worse off than they were before, and result in ill feelingtowards the initiative. Economic feasibility studies of any job-creationprojects should be undertaken before they are implemented and itshould be clear from the outset which jobs are expected to be onlytemporary and/or seasonal.


See Questions 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.2.9, 2.2.10 and Option 2.4.16, Volume 1;Concept Files 4.19 (Primary environmental care), 4.22 (Ecotourism) and4.24 (Jobs in conservation), Volume 2; and Examples 33a-d in Section 6,Volume 2.


83


Local distribution of revenues fromthe conservation initiative

If the conservation initiative is capable of generating an income flow(e.g., via ecotourism or culling of wildlife), then identify, together withthe interested parties, a way to distribute a part of such revenueslocally. The distribution could be carried out in different ways. Rev-enues could be shared equally among all the households in a village;they could be shared proportionally to needs, or to damages sufferedbecause of the conservation initiative; or they could be used to build alocal "livelihood fund". The fund would finance local projects, in particu-lar, projects to benefit the social groups disadvantaged by the initiative.Whichever system is used must be transparent and accountable andagreed to by all the stakeholders.

An advantage of this approach is that it directly links specific benefitswith the existence of the conservation initiative. The option should,however, be approached realistically. Very few conservation initiativeshave the potential to generate large sums of money. Where revenuesare small, they may not be a sufficient incentive for people to partici-pate (i.e., to spend time and resources) in developing communal initia-tives. It also may not be feasible to share them equally among house-holds. In such a situation, investing the revenues for some communitydevelopment project may be an interesting option, especially if theproject can serve the interests of local people in an equitable way.Alternatively, when revenues are substantial, it may be difficult toconvince government authorities that the local people are entitled to asizeable share.

The management of the revenues should be carried out in a competentand transparent way, following established rules. A written record ofhow the funds are distributed should be kept, and made available to thepublic.

For further reference See Questions 2.2.7, 2.2.8 and 2.2.10, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.23(Compensation and substitution programmes), 4.25 (Economic valua-tion in conservation) and 4.26 (Incentives and disincentives to conserva-tion), Volume 2; Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 34a-f inSection 6, Volume 2.

84



Compensation and substitutionprogrammes

Carry out an economic evaluation of the resources to which some peoplewill lose access, or which could suffer damage as a result of the conser-vation initiative (e.g., serious damage to crops and livestock can becaused by wild animals protected by the initiative). Carry out an as-sessment of potential compensation and substitution programmes (e.g.,rotating funds for local development projects, systems to compensatefor actual damage, systems to replace a protected resource with anotherlocal or non-local product). If the programmes are deemed feasible andeffective, implement them. The programmes should aim at increasingself-reliance, compensating for damages and maintaining quality of life,but should strive to not create a dependency on outside resources.

Compensating for losses experienced by individuals or a community asa result of a conservation initiative reinforces the initiative itself.Unfortunately, the mechanisms to provide monetary compensation toindividuals who have suffered specific losses (e.g., crop damage by wildanimals) can be cumbersome and difficult to keep transparent andhonest.

Substitution programmes can also provide a means of compensation.Often, however, local people whose livelihoods or basic needs are de-pendent on the resources to be protected will stop using those resourcesonly if and when an alternative is provided.

Initiating and establishing compensation and substitution programmescan consume both time and energy and are demanding in terms of stafftime and skills. Ingenuity, social sensitivity and economic skills areneeded to design adequate provisions to balance major changes in life-style and production systems consequent to a conservation initiative.


See Questions 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.7, 2.2.8 and 2.2.10, Volume 1; ConceptFiles 4.23 (Compensation and substitution programmes) and 4.26(Incentives and disincentives to conservation), Volume 2; and Examples35a-e in Section 6, Volume 2.


85


Option for action 2.4.16Carry out studies of the practicality and economic viability of theactivities that have been proposed to provide for local needs within theconservation initiative. Undertake thorough market research on thedemand for products, the likely income and the establishment costs.Organize meetings to discuss and expand on the results of the studieswith all potentially affected groups. Make sure that the people whostart commercial activities associated with the conservation initiativeare supported by appropriate business training. Financial feasibilitystudies backed up by appropriate training will ensure that all con-cerned have realistic expectations.

Feasibility studies generally require a variety of skills and knowledge.Depending on the venture to be examined, these may include marketand consumer analysis, business management, accounting, processing,etc. Involving local people who have knowledge relevant to the proposedproduction and tapping into voluntary expertise in the wider regionmay lessen the need for expensive professional advice. Nevertheless,relevant expertise is often needed; the conservation initiative may findit appropriate to offer this type of support. The cost of failure for boththe local people and the initiative may be too high to warrant unneces-sary risks.

For further reference See Question 2.2.10 and Options 2.4.12, 2.4.13, 2.4.14 and 2.4.15,Volume 1; Concept Files 4.19 (Primary environmental care) and 4.25(Economic valuation in conservation), Volume 2; Information Gatheringand Assessment in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 36a-c in Section6, Volume 2.

86

Financial feasibility studies


Linking benefits with efforts inconservation

Identify mechanisms that proportionally reward the efforts of individu-als or groups in the conservation initiative. Efforts include all contribu-tions: labour, land, equipment, expertise, as well as costs borne, etc.The mechanisms could be ongoing (such as assurance of tenure, orpayments for conservation tasks on the basis of the obtained conserva-tion results), or time-specific (such as a prize or reward for particularachievements). Explore culturally relevant mechanisms of rewardingmerit (e.g., ceremonies and public recognition may be part of the benefitexpected and desired). Consider linking benefits with zoning arrange-ments.

This approach reinforces the message that the contribution of localstakeholders to the initiative is important, noticed and valued. It alsocreates a built-in positive reinforcement of good practices.

There are, however, two potential problems that need to be consideredbefore proceeding with this option. First, the contributions people maketowards the initiative need to be seen in proportion to what they areable to give. For instance, while wealthy people may contribute a greatdeal of money, this may only be a small sacrifice for them. A motherwho offers some of her time after working in the fields and looking aftera house and family contributes much more in relative terms.

The second potential problem is identifying who contributes what. Thisis especially difficult in cultures where peopie work mostly in groups. Insuch cases it may be more appropriate to reward a group or an entirecommunity rather than individuals.


See Question 2.2.9 and Options 2.4.11, 2.4.12, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, and 2.4.15,Volume 1; Concept Files 4.19 (Primary environmental care) and 4.23(Compensation and substitution programmes), Volume 2; and Examples37a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.


87


Option for action 2.4.18 Supportive links with relevant servicesand programmes

Identify and pursue potential supportive links between the conserva-tion initiative and programmes of various governmental sectors (e.g.,health, education, agriculture, etc.) as well as NGO- and community-based programmes operating in the area. For instance, link participa-tory planning exercises for the management of natural resources toparticipatory planning for primary health care, to projects promotingwomen's and children's education and training, and to agro-forestrytraining schemes, rural credit schemes, family planning services, etc.

The first purpose of forming these links is improving local livelihood byall available means and methods; conservation of natural resourcescannot be sustained in the face of deteriorating living conditions. Thesecond purpose is to gain maximum benefits from the services andresources available. Links will also ensure that other programmes andservices operating in the region are aware of the initiative and itsobjectives.

The benefits of linking may be as direct and simple as sharing facilitiesand means of transportation. They may also be major and forward-looking, such as the conservation benefits of stabilizing localpopulations when appropriate health and family planning services arewidely available.

The crucial importance of this option should not be underestimated.There is little logic in trying to provide local people with incentives toconservation when their most important concerns (health, education,the local economy) are being neglected.

For further reference See Option 2.4.12, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.4 (Population dynamicsand conservation) and 4.26 (Incentives and disincentives to conserva-tion), Volume 2; and Examples 38a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.

88


Monitoring land tenure and land valuesin sensitive areas

Establish a system to monitor land ownership and land values insensitive areas, such as buffer zones around protected areas. In territo-ries undergoing rapid land-use changes, such as agricultural frontierregions, land markets can be volatile and unpredictable. Speculativeforces often operate a step ahead of legislation, and can undermineefforts at establishing protected areas, special management zones, andcommunity-based conservation. This is particularly important whenindigenous peoples are involved. Ongoing monitoring can provide theconservation initiative with key information about the forces at work inand around the natural resources at stake.

The principal aims of the monitoring system would be to establish abaseline situation and ground rules in terms of access to and tenure ofnatural resources. The system would be useful for highlighting existingcontradictions and conflicts when trying to reach mutually agreeablesolutions. Once solutions are found, the monitoring would help detectviolations of agreements.

The monitoring system can be run either by a local committee com-prised of key figures of the region or community, or by an independenttechnical entity. If available, a geographic information system (GIS) orcomputer-based mapping technology may be used to store and analyzeinformation. The system may combine a review of public registries withextensive field work, including workshops and participatory surveys. Itshould be noted that a land tenure monitoring system can be relativelyexpensive and time-consuming and is usually applied on a limitedscale, specifically in very sensitive areas for conservation, or in areas ofrapid land-use change.


See Options 2.4.2 and 2.4.3, Volume 1; Monitoring and Evaluation inSection 5, Volume 2; and Example 39a in Section 6, Volume 2.


89



A number of mechanisms can be devised and established to link abenefit or return to appropriate management practices. For instance,tenure of a given piece of land and permission to use a certain resourcecan be made conditional on the quality of resources on that land or onthe quality of the management of the resources. Obviously, referencestandards and guidelines should be well known to all the parties.

Care needs to be taken in adopting this option. In general, it works bestwhen the wish to manage resources in a sustainable way is internalized(i.e., accepted wholeheartedly) by the users of resources. Incentiveswhich rely on project funds should be avoided.

For further reference See Questions 2.2.7 and 2.2.9, Volume 1; Concept File 4.26 (Incentivesand disincentives to conservation), Volume 2; and Examples 40a-d inSection 6, Volume 2.

90

Incentives to conservation accountability


Biodiversity monitoring and areasurvelllance by local people

Discuss with local people whether they wish to take on the task ofmonitoring local biodiversity in the territory covered by the initiative. Ifthey do, agree on procedures and responsibilities to ensure that, whenproblems are identified, they are acted on quickly.

Monitoring biodiversity is one of the most interesting contributions thatlocal people can provide to a conservation initiative. Usually they haveboth an interest and a comparative advantage in doing the work,because of their easy and frequent access to resources, and because oftheir detailed knowledge of places and local ecology. Many local resi-dents, for instance, recognize signs of change that are not obvious tonon-local observers.

Indicators for the monitoring exercises would be agreed to by the localpeople and the initiative's staff, as would the reporting schedule andany compensation. In some cases, maintaining local biodiversity wouldbe sufficient reward; in others (especially in very poor communities),explicit compensation may be needed; this can take a variety of forms.In some cases, a community may be assured of access to harvesting agiven quantity of resources in exchange for monitoring biodiversity. Inothers, an economic return may be given (for the whole community orfor a salaried individual). In general, it would be advisable to includethis option in a general discussion of roles, rights and responsibilities ofstakeholders regarding the conservation initiative (see option 1.4.17).

Local people can also effectively carry out surveillance of an area or setof resources. For instance, they can watch for outsiders who try toexploit resources in illegal ways (see example 41d). Surveillance mayalso refer to phenomena such as fire, floods and landslides. Localresidents do have a comparative advantage (and often a direct interest)in recognizing risk factors and early warnings of disastrous events suchas fire and floods. If properly supported by relevant social services theycan carry out valuable and effective work in disaster prevention.

In surveillance work, local residents should not try to apprehend theviolators (which in most countries would be illegal), but instead commu-nicate quickly (e.g., by radio) with the relevant authorities. Specificrewards may be agreed upon as an incentive.

See Question 2.2.9, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.20 (Sustainable use ofwildlife), 4.21 (Sustainable farming, forestry and fishing practices)and 4.22 (Ecotourism), Volume 2; and Examples 41a-d in Section 6,Volume 2.



91


Option for action 2.4.22 Integrating the conservation initiative withlocal empowerment in welfare, health andpopulation dynamics

Promote participatory assessment and planning exercises in whichinitiatives in natural resource management and local welfare andpopulation dynamics are dealt with in an integrated fashion. Lobbyauthorities to enhance local capabilities for income generation, jobtraining, basic education (especially for women), reproductive healthand family planning, and to facilitate a good measure of local aware-ness and control of local migration phenomena.

Poverty, disease and rapid changes in local population (growth anddecline) have a powerful affect on the management of resources. If theconservation initiative is not concerned with local welfare, health andpopulation dynamics, it may become incapable of dealing with phenom-ena such as deteriorating quality of life and inequitable distribution ofresources. These are often at the root of the opposition and conflictsthat undermine the sustainability of conservation initiatives.

This option does not at all imply that the initiative become directlyinvolved with providing family planning services, health care or in-come-generating opportunities. It does, however, suggest that theinitiative help local stakeholders (including government authorities) toconsider and discuss resource management issues together with issuesof local welfare and population dynamics. Once the relevant actors (e.g.,government agencies or NGOs working with local people) have decidedwhat they wish to do about these issues, the initiative may supportthem (in direct or indirect ways) to take appropriate action.

For further reference See Questions 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.4 (Popu-lation dynamics and conservation) and 4.19 (Primary environmentalcare), Volume 2; Information Gathering and Assessment, and Planningin Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 42a-b in Section 6, Volume 2.

92


3.1Managing asustainableinitiative

This section considers how an initiative can deal with its most immedi-ate social concerns: those of the people who work for it. Most conserva-tion initiatives involve the long-term management of territories and thenatural resources they contain. This is the "environmental manage-ment" we have so far discussed in this volume; have argued could becarried out in a participatory manner (Section 1); and could meetconservation objectives while providing for local needs (Section 2). Theinitiative itself, however, needs to be managed and remain viable in thelong run, and the way in which this is sought after is a determinant ofsocial sustainability in its own right.

The skills, attitudes and commitment of the team in charge of theinitiative; the quality of the relationships among them and with stake-holders and the community at large; the openness and fairness withwhich the team deals with conflicts and change; the reconciliation ofpersonal and professional goals — all of these factors have an impact onthe initial success and long-term sustainability of the initiative. Usingthe term "internal management" in regard to such an initiative thusmeans the structure, practices, attitudes and work styles of the peopleworking for it.

In the case of a protected area, "internal management" would refer tothe ways in which the local branch of the government agency responsi-ble organizes its work; shares tasks and responsibilities; hires, moti-vates and rewards staff; facilitates internal communication among staffand external communication with local stakeholders; evaluates its ownwork; and so on. In the case of a project (e.g., a three-year support ofthe rehabilitation of a watershed), or a programme (e.g., the develop-ment of institutional structures and long-term management of a coastalarea) "internal management" would refer to the management style ofthe team in charge. The details may differ from one case to the next,but the principles for social sustainability are similar.

Why is internal management important? Promoting the participation oflocal stakeholders without practising participation within the initiativeis at best contradictory and at worst hypocritical and ineffective. Man-agement studies show how important the structure of an organizationis for the success of its goals — no matter what they are. For instance,organizations that are 'flat' (non-hierarchical), friendly and supportiveof personal initiative and team spirit are more capable of responding todemanding and complex tasks. Such organizations seem to be able tomake optimal use of the capacities of the staff and productively channelthe energy too often wasted in internal struggles, resentments andbureaucratic red tape. No one model, however (not even non-hierarchi-cal and participatory management), is good for all occasions. Everyinitiative needs to develop its own approach, although awareness ofvarious approaches is invariably useful.

A few other points of general validity. First, the quality and commit-ment of the initiative's staff is paramount for its success both in termsof conservation achievements and communication with stakeholders.Investing in the staff usually pays off. Second, the time horizon toassess consequences and impact should be fairly long (several years orso). Complex integration of biological and social resources does nothappen from one day to the next. Third, staff drawn from the commu-nity, community volunteers, co-opted or elected community members ofworking groups, etc. are also part of the conservation initiative. These

94


people are perhaps the most vulnerable to exploitation. Too many tasks,too little supervision, insufficient support and encouragement, poorcommunication — all of these may contribute to such people feelingundervalued and left out, especially when they may be the ones work-ing in the heat and dust. They may also be the least educated, and yettheir need for training is not often recognized, even though the long-term sustainability of the initiative depends upon their skills andenthusiasm.

This section takes a professional team working for conservationthrough some key questions, indicators, warning flags and options foraction to reflect upon and evaluate their own work style and effective-ness. This can be a difficult and at times uncomfortable process. Ifserious conflicts surface, it may be useful to bring in an independentfacilitator to guide the process in a constructive manner.

The skills, attitudes and commit-ment of the team in charge ofthe initiative; the quality of therelationships among them-selves, with stakeholders andwith the community at large; theopenness and fairness withwhich the team deals withconflicts and change; thereconciliation of personal andprofessional goals — all havean impact on the initial successand long-term sustainability ofthe initiative.

95


3.2

Key Questions

Key question 3.2.1

Is the initiative run as a projector a process?

• Is the initiative run as a project (set approach, objectives, time limit)or a process (ongoing and adaptable in response to lessons learned)?

• What is the time horizon of the initiative? Is there a balance amonglong-term, medium-term and short-term objectives and activities? Arework schedules and phases realistic?

• Who identifies the initiative's specific objectives, activities and dead-lines? Is it the local staff of the initiative? Local staff and variousstakeholders? People not involved in running day-to-day activities?

• Is there enough flexibility in carrying out activities that opportunitiesand constraints can be met as they arise and not ignored because ofprior planning?

• Are monitoring, evaluating and reviewing/replanning activitiescarried out on an ongoing basis? Are mistakes acknowledged andlearned from, or do they go unrecognized and unacknowledged?


A project or a process?Management styles

96


What is the initiative's management style?

• Is the initiative run on a strict hierarchical basis? Are individualideas and endeavours rewarded or repressed? Are decisions imposed ordiscussed? Are the bases of decisions generally known by the staff ornot known? Is there openness to new ideas and ways of working?

• Are all the decision-makers in the initiative accountable to someonedirectly supervising them? Are they also accountable to staff at large?How is accountability established and ensured?

• Is the initiative as a whole accountable to stakeholders?

• Are staff treated in a respectful and friendly way, or are they har-assed and kept in fear and insecurity? Do managers tend to hide infor-mation from staff and lie to them? Do staff tend to hide informationfrom managers and lie to them?

• Are internal bureaucratic requirements reasonable or cumbersome?Can necessary changes be made quickly? How many people are in-volved in making a decision of medium importance?

• Is the initiative's budget open to scrutiny? Are purchasing policiestransparent to all? Do staff discuss budget decisions with managers?

Key question 3.2.2


Management styles


97


Key question 3.2.3 How are the staff managed and motivated?

• How are the staff recruited? Is recruitment decided by one person orby a team? Is there a bias in terms of gender, ethnicity, religion, caste orother characteristic? Why is this so? Does this have consequences forthe conservation initiative?

• Are the local groups most affected by the initiative represented in thecomposition of the staff? Are local people given employment preferenceover expatriates of equal ability? Is knowledge of the local culture andsystems valued and reflected in the recruitment of professional staff?

• How is staff morale? On what basis are staff evaluated and rewarded?Are they confident about job tenure? Are there clear (and flexible) jobdescriptions? Are there opportunities for professional development andcapacity-building? Are staff overworked? Are staff often idle?

•Will salaries maintain families in decent living conditions? What isthe gap between the top and bottom salaries of the technical staff? Arethere differences in the salaries of technical staff among disciplines(e.g., biologists and social scientists)? What is the salary and benefitsgap between local and expatriate staff and between national and localstaff? Are the gaps justified and accepted by everyone?

• What is the gap between technical staff members in terms of use ofvehicles, secretarial support, use of budget resources for travel, perdiems, etc.? Are these gaps justified and acceptable to everyone?

• For staff working in the field, is adequate provision made to compen-sate or redress any lack of essential facilities in the area concerned?

• Where personal risk is involved, are staff provided with adequateprotection or security back-up? Are staff provided with adequate equip-ment/facilities to carry out their responsibilities?

• Is there a staff association, union or some other organization to repre-sent staff interests? If the need arises (e.g., attacks from vested inter-ests), are staff and management willing and able to support each other?


Local knowledge for conservationIndigenous people and protected areasManagement styles

98



What is the quality of Internalcommunication among the staff?

• Is information shared among the staff or is it kept and used by indi-viduals? Are there regular staff meetings, bulletin boards and othermeans by which staff members can inform one another about theirwork, problems and opportunities?

• Is team work promoted or avoided? Do all staff participate in assess-ing problems and opportunities, and in planning, monitoring andevaluating activities?

• Are staff usually open and vocal in disagreements, and in suggestingalternative courses of action? Are such suggestions sought and wel-comed by the managers in charge?

• Are there groupings and alliances among staff, with some in opposi-tion to others? Are instances of open conflict among staff frequent orrare? Are there accepted ways of mediating conflicts? Who makes thefinal decision in the case of persistent disagreements?

• Are managers credible in the eyes of the staff? Are staff professionallyvalued by the managers?

• Are there opportunities for exchanges of ideas and experiences be-tween staff working in different projects or between different sections ofthe initiative?

Key question 3.2.4


Management stylesFor further reference

99


What is the quality of communicationbetween the staff of the conservationinitiative and the local stakeholders?

• Do the staff of the initiative speak the local language and interactwith local people in social terms? Are there social events in which bothstaff and local people participate? Do staff show respect for local cus-toms and values? Do local communities appear to value the professionaland personal qualities of the staff of the initiative?

• Do staff tend to generalize the characteristics of local people or ofcertain groups of local people (e.g., "they are all too clever", "they arelazy", "they are poachers", etc.)? Do local people do the same about thestaff (e.g., "they care only for animals", "they are corrupt", "they cannotbe trusted", etc.)?

• Are the managers and staff of the initiative credible in the eyes oflocal people? Do they have something to offer that is valuable in theeyes of the locals? Is their expertise generally recognized?

• Are local people entirely dependent for information on what the staffof the conservation initiative pass on to them, or have they some meansof requesting information? Do local people often initiate relationships,e.g., by asking for support, advice or by demanding some change in thepractices of the initiative? If yes, is the staff accessible? Are requestshandled promptly and fairly?

• Is there a way for stakeholders to transmit complaints regardingtheir relationship with the staff of the conservation initiative?


Cross-cultural communication and local mediaLocal knowledge in conservationManagement styles

100

Key question 3.2.5


Are the staff's capacities and work plansuited to the initiative?

• When hiring technical staff, how is practical and local experiencevalued compared to academic background or international experience?

• Is an appropriate variety of capacities represented among the staff(e.g., physical and social sciences, local work experience, local lan-guages, etc.)? Is capacity appropriately matched to roles and tasks? Isthe gender, age and level of education or ethnic background of the staffappropriate to ensure effective relations with various stakeholders?

• Do any/many of the staff have special training in social issues inconservation?

• Do the staff work in a multi-disciplinary way or is the organization acollection of different professionals working in isolation? Are social is-sues placed in a separate department, isolated from mainstream work?

• Is the monitoring and evaluation function cut off from day-to-daywork or is it integrated into ongoing activities?

• Is most staff time spent in the office on administrative tasks, or in thefield? Is the main office close to the field or in a 'convenient' town?

• Is the work schedule attuned to the timing of activities in the localcommunities (e.g., major planning meetings scheduled for less busytimes of the year)?

• Are the managers and staff exposed to current literature and debateson conservation?

• Is any ongoing research element incorporated in the work plan? Arethe results of such research (and/or the lessons learned in everydaywork) incorporated in the initiative's work plan?

• Ultimately, is the staff committed to the work? Do they believe theyare achieving the results they had in mind?

Key question 3.2.6


Management styles

101



3.3Indicators ofsustainableinternalmanagement

IndicatorsPercentage of deadlines met,results achieved on time

Instances in which the workplan has been substantiallymodified as a positive responseto lessons learned along the way

Efficiency with which staff areable to deal with managementchallenges/emergencies

Percentage of staff satisfied withemployment conditions, andfeeling professionally rewarded

Percentage of staff appreciativeof the professional qualities ofcolleagues, and in good com-munication with them

Variety of social characteristics,background and capacitiesrepresented among the staff

Frequency, openness andeffectiveness of staff meetings,and meetings to plan/evaluateongoing work

Adequacy of lowest staff income/benefits to provide a decentliving to an average family

Frequency and quality ofinteraction (both professionaland social) between staff, localpeople and stakeholders

Warning flags

Time horizon of the initiativeclearly unrealistic to achieveexpected results, frequentdelays

Frequent confusion of staff regard-ing meetings, appointments,schedules

Staff morale exceedingly low,frequent verbal fights, lack ofcooperation

Disagreements about the goals ofthe initiative among staff

Only men, only expatriates, onlybiological scientists in seniormanagerial positions

Some staff have incomes andbenefits clearly insufficient tomaintain a family

Staff say that they "have no timeto deal with local people", they"have no time to go to the field"

102


Indicators

Percentage of local people whosay they trust the staff of theconservation initiative andvalue their presence

Number of activities thatoriginated from suggestionsmade by stakeholders

Warning flags

People in charge of keydecisions about theinitiative are not at allfamiliar with the socio-culturalreality in the area at stake

Major complaints by local peopleabout the attitude and behaviourof the staff of the initiative (eitheropenly expressed or surfacingupon questioning)

The staff of the initiative knowmuch less than local people aboutlocal conservation and socialissues but still dictatethe rules

Reports that staff are offeringundue advantages to some localgroups, or even aiding parties whoundermine the initiative(e.g., poachers)

103



The following options for action offer some ideas on how the conserva-tion initiative can deal with its most immediate social concerns — thoseof the people it employs. The options need to be considered in the lightof particular circumstances, depending on which they may or may notbe appropriate. You will undoubtedly think of other options as well.Importantly, the list of options for actions should not be viewed as astep-by-step procedure, although it is subdivided in the order in whichoptions would be logically considered (for example, you may want tohave internal meetings among staff before calling for meetings amongstaff and stakeholders). Also, some of the options below are alternativesto one another and need to be compared in terms of appropriateness tothe particular context.

The list of options is subdivided into three groups according to the typeof activity. These are:

Options to improve internal relationships among staff, and buildupon their commitment and capacities

3.4.1 Staff review of internal management issues3.4.2 Regular staff meetings to communicate and evaluate

ongoing work3.4.3 'On-the-job' capacity building3.4.4 Decentralizing decision-making within the conservation

initiative3.4.5 Reviewing the initiative for timing and flexibility

Options to improve relationships among staff and localstakeholders

3.4.6 Hiring staff from local area3.4.7 Staff visits to the field operations3.4.8 Cultural presentations for the staff of the initiative3.4.9 Integrating local culture and traditions within the

conservation initiative

Options to sustain the relationship between the conservationinitiative and the local stakeholders

3.4.10 Extraordinary staff and stakeholder meetings3.4.11 Ongoing communication programme3.4.12 Monitoring change in the local communities3.4.13 Networking with local leaders and opinion-makers

104


Staff review of internal managementIssues

Appoint an individual or team from the staff, or set up a number ofgroups or committees to review the internal management policiesregarding particular issues (e.g., hiring procedures, staff salaries,opportunities for professional advancement, internal communication,etc.). Tailor the size of the review team to match the size of the or-ganization and the severity of the problem. Where there are tensionswithin the project team, it may be helpful to bring in a skilled outsiderto facilitate the review process. Such a person should be able to look atthe operations and structures more dispassionately and to raise issueswhich staff may feel uncomfortable in addressing.

Giving staff the responsibility of identifying not only problems but alsosolutions means that the proposed changes are likely to be 'owned' andtherefore supported by the staff. For this reason, it maybe appropriateto involve all staff in some way in the review process.

It is important that the results of the review are fed back to the staff atlarge, and that they are all given the opportunity to respond to therecommendations. This ensures that staff members have the opportu-nity to check, and, if necessary, correct the interpretation of the infor-mation that each of them provided to the reviewer(s) before or-ganizational changes are made.

It is also important that the reviewer(s) have sufficient seniority to dealwith all the issues and levels within the organization. For instance,focusing just on solving administrative problems at the field level willnot bring great benefits if the attitudes and practices of senior manage-ment are the key issues undermining the morale of the staff.


See Questions 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.27(A project or a process?) and 4.28 (Management styles), Volume 2;Planning, and Monitoring and Evaluation, in Section 5, Volume 2; andExample 43a in Section 6, Volume 2.


105


Option for action 3.4.2 Regular staff meetings to communicateand evaluate ongoing work

Establish a regular schedule of staff meetings where people can discussall the issues they care about (with the agenda to be set by all the staff).Make sure that time in the meetings is dedicated to updating col-leagues on work carried out by individuals, and to ongoing evaluationsof the effectiveness of activities. Make sure that the climate is appropri-ate for disagreements, discussion of alternatives and "replanning", asappropriate.

Staff meetings can be very effective in building a sense of team spiritand commitment among the project staff, from management to fieldtechnicians. The process encourages staff to think about the conserva-tion initiative holistically rather than just about the particular aspectthey are involved with.

Staff meetings also increase the chance that potential problems will beidentified and dealt with before they damage the initiative. As with anymeetings where problems/issues are identified, it is important to ensurethat appropriate responses are decided, processes put in place, respon-sibilities allocated and agreed actions undertaken.

It is also important to watch out for boredom at meetings, and to pre-vent one or a few people monopolizing the floor for their own interests.The role of the chairperson in the meeting should rotate regularly toencourage a sense of shared responsibility among the staff.

For further reference See Questions 3.2.4 and 3.2.6, Volume 1; Concept File 4.28 (Managementstyles), Volume 2; Planning, and Monitoring and Evaluation in Section5, Volume 2; and Examples 44a-b in Section 6, Volume 2.

106


On-the-job capacity building

Assign part of the management budget to training and professionalenhancement of the staff. Make sure that staff identify areas wherethey face professional problems and suggest ways to enhance theircapacities to respond to such problems. Encourage staff to present andanalyze their field experiences as part of ongoing training.

On-the-job training has two major advantages over more formalcourses. First, it is directed specifically at tasks required for the conser-vation initiative; second, the lessons learned can be directly experi-mented with and put into practice.

Providing staff with opportunities to increase their professional capaci-ties will benefit the initiative through improved staff performance aswell as through fostering a greater sense of staff loyalty and commit-ment.

It is important that staff are provided with training and professionalenhancement opportunities that actually match the needs of the initia-tive. It is also important that there is no bias in the choice of staff beingprovided with capacity-building opportunities. Favouritism — perceivedor actual — will damage staff relationships and team spirit as will thefeeling that the training needs of some staff are being neglected be-cause their roles within the initiative are not appreciated.

See Questions 3.2.3 and 3.2.6, Volume 1; and Examples 45a-e in Section6, Volume 2.


107



Option for action 3.4.4 Decentralizing decision-making withinthe conservation initiative

Make sure that as many staff as possible are empowered to makedecisions at different levels within the management structure. Inparticular, this should apply to decisions directly related to each per-son's work, whether inside the agency or between the agency and thelocal community. This empowerment will make the organization moreflexible and efficient in responding to needs as they arise, since deci-sions will be made closer to the on-the-ground issues. It will also givestaff a greater sense of job satisfaction.

For decentralized decision-making to be successful, staff must haveclear guidelines on the extent and limits of their authority and feel theyare personally responsible and accountable for results to match thatauthority. They must also have adequate capacity and support to beable to make sound decisions and resist coercion from vested interests.

For further reference See Questions 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.18 (Decentral-izing and devolving government) and 4.28 (Management styles), Volume2; and Examples 46a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.

108


Reviewimg the initiative for timingand flexibility

Carry out regular reviews of the conservation initiative, with particularfocus on the timing of activities and the amount of flexibility allowed forongoing replanning and responses to specific opportunities and prob-lems. Check that the schedule is realistic, that the human resources aresufficient, and that all other resources required are available.

Conservation initiatives need to respond to change in the naturalenvironment, as well as change in the availability of resources, people'spriorities, technology, the political situation, etc. Regular reviews are away of assessing progress and evaluating how to respond to suchchange. The reviews should be carried out on a regular basis (e.g., everysix months) so that problems which could undermine the effectivenessand sustainability of the initiative are noticed and dealt with beforethey cause damage.

Involve representatives of the local community in the exercise and, ifapplicable, donor agencies as well. Involving the local people anddonors will reinforce their sense of ownership and commitment to theconservation initiative.


See Questions 3.2.1 and 3.2.5, Volume 1; Concept File 4.27 (A project ora process?), Volume 2; Monitoring and Evaluation in Section 5, Volume2; and Example 47a in Section 6, Volume 2.

109



Hire people from the local area for jobs in the conservation initiative.Specifically consider technical and managerial positions, and not onlysupport jobs. Give preference to people conversant with local language,culture and conditions who do not belong to political factions or partieswhich are in open conflict with some groups or sectors in the localsociety. Local staff should have contact with local stakeholders but. atthe same time, be protected from pressures for undue favours.

This option offers an effective way of integrating local conservationskills and knowledge into the initiative, thus making it more sustain-able in the long-term. It is also likely to result in a more stable staffingsituation, especially in remote areas where outsiders are likely to takea position only for a limited period. Also, the employment of locals is themost efficient and effective way of reducing barriers between the initia-tive and the local community due to language and cultural differences.Employing local people can bring advantages to the local community aswell. For instance, it ensures that at least a part of the salaries andwages is retained locally, as an immediate and tangible benefit of theinitiative.

Staff selected on the basis of being locals must be locally well accepted.It is advisable to check out their history and standing in the communitywith key community members prior to making any appointment. Forlocal staff, their level of credibility in the community is at least asimportant as their professional qualifications.

To avoid creating disparities in the local economy, ensure that pay ratesand other benefits for local staff are aligned with those being paid inother local institutions. At the same time, ensure that differencesbetween local and non-local pay rates are justifiable and accepted bythe relevant staff.

For further reference See Questions 3.2.5 and 3.2.6, Volume 1; Concept File 4.24 (Jobs inconservation), Volume 2; and Examples 48a-f in Section 6, Volume 2.

110

Option for action 3.4.6 Hiring staff from the local area


Staff visits to field operations

Organize reasonably frequent field visits for all the professional staffinvolved in the initiative, including managers and administrators, tofamiliarize them with the area and meet the local stakeholders. Ifappropriate and possible, include the donors of the initiative as well.

It is advisable that some visits be well planned, but that others be madeon the spur of the moment. The professional staff may wish to discussbeforehand what to look for and what they hope to learn, so that theirobservations and meetings will be focused and instructive. The teamshould strive to meet those people who are members of localdecision-making groups such as Conservation Councils or major re-source-user associations.


See Question 3.2.5, Volume 1; and Examples 49a-b in Section 6,Volume 2.


111


Option for action 3.4.8 Cultural presentations for the staff of theinitiative

Organize meetings, presentations and shows for the staff of the conser-vation initiative (in particular, for non-local staff!) to learn about localhistory, cultural customs and beliefs, and existing or past institutionsand systems for resource management. One approach that may beappropriate is to help the local people to make their own video/slideshow, illustrating the environmental issues in their community and theaspects of their environment which are important to them. The videocould record the development of the initiative and document environ-mental improvements and community responses over time. Provideways of discussing the presentations together among staff and localpeople.

If appropriate, the 'cultural' sessions could provide a forum in which toconsider how to deal with local customs that are at odds with conserva-tion of local resources and/or with internationally recognized humanrights.

See Questions 3.2.5 and 3.2.6, Volume 1; Concept File 4.29 (Cross-cultural communication and local media), Volume 2; Social Communi-cation, in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 50a-c in Section 6,Volume 2.

112



Integrating local culture and traditionswith the conservation initiative

Look for connections between traditional beliefs and values and theobjectives of the initiative and develop these connections in the ap-proach, objectives and information material of the initiative. Look foropportunities to expand and enhance positive traditional activities.

For example, dedicate some resources to collecting background informa-tion on traditional practices and activities. Discuss these in joint meet-ings between local people and staff. In agreement with the local people,record their stories and myths on conservation issues, and store themin ways that provide easy access (e.g., cassette tapes). Present therecordings to the community as a contribution from the conservationinitiative.


See Questions 2.2.2 and 3.2.5, Volume 1; Concept Files 4.2 (Indigenousresource management systems), 4.10 (Local knowledge in conservation)and 4.11 (Indigenous people and protected areas), Volume 2; InformationGathering and Assessment, and Planning in Section 5, Volume 2; andExamples 51a-c in Section 6, Volume 2.


113


Option for action 3.4.10 Extraordinary staff and stakeholdermeetings

Whenever a decision must be made that will affect the local communityin a significant way, organize a special meeting to discuss the reasonsfor the decision and its implications for staff and local stakeholders.

Ensure that the venue and time for the meeting are suitable for allparties. Conduct the meeting in a way that encourages an open discus-sion of pros and cons and, in particular, measures to reduce any detri-mental impacts on stakeholders. Make sure that all the informationneeded for staff and stakeholders to understand the issue is availableat the meeting and in a form which everyone can understand. As muchas possible, those affected by the proposed change need to understandand accept the need for action.

The meetings can become a forum for resolving actual or potentialconflicts among stakeholders or between stakeholders and the initia-tive. If this is a possibility, care should be taken in selecting a skilledfacilitator. It may also be appropriate for the meeting to be chaired byan acknowledged and respected leader from the area.

For further reference See Questions 3.2.1 and 3.2.5, Volume 1; Concept File 4.15 (Conflicts inconservation), Volume 2; Social Communication, and Conflict Manage-ment in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 52a-b in Section 6,Volume 2.

114


Ongoing communication programme

Assign to capable, experienced staff the task of maintaining ongoingrelationships with local stakeholders and, in particular, assisting themin primary environmental care initiatives and other projects to gener-ate benefits and economic returns from conservation.

For instance, relationships could be maintained by a regular series ofevents (such as a weekly or monthly radio programme, or a theatregroup performing at ceremonies or local social occasions) in whichpeople expect to hear news about the conservation initiative. Make theevents as interactive as possible (accept calls from listeners, read outletters received, invite local speakers, ask the audience to comment,intervene in the scene, etc.).

A regular newsletter in the local language is another possibility. Makesure it is understandable by local people and addresses matters ofinterest to them. Involve local people in the preparation of the newslet-ter and other events, to enrich and 'test' the effectiveness of the chosencommunication tools and avenues.

Adopt other systems of communicating information as appropriate tothe area and the initiative. These could include pamphlets and posters;presentations to schools and churches; guided tours of the conservationarea, etc. It is important that the methods used to communicate takeinto account the needs of those who are illiterate. In this sense, posters,guided tours and audio-visual displays are particularly appropriate, aswell as presentations to groups.

Ongoing communication is important for the maintenance of trustbetween the parties. The links also facilitate a sharing of informationand the prevention of conflicts. However, being 'in touch' is not enough.As issues arise, the management of the conservation initiative needs torespond to local concerns and take action as appropriate.


See Questions 1.2.6 and 3.2.5, Volume 1; Concept File 4.29 (Cross-cultural communication and local media), Volume 2; Social Communi-cation in Section 5, Volume 2; and Examples 53a-c in Section 6,Volume 2.


115


Option for action 3.4.12 Monitoring change in the localcommunities

Establish a system to monitor change in the status of local socio-eco-nomic conditions and relationships with the conservation initiative.Appropriate questions to address include: is there substantial change inthe capacity of local people to meet their own needs? Is there substan-tial change in the impact on the ecosystem caused by local use of re-sources? Are there substantial changes in the attitudes of local peopletowards the initiative?

The monitoring system could form part of the ongoing participatorymonitoring and evaluation programme, if one exists, or it could be apurely internal exercise for the benefit of management, based onfield-worker reports.

For further reference See Questions 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5 and 3.2.1, Volume 1; Moni-toring and Evaluation in Section 5, Volume 2; and Example 54a inSection 6, Volume 2.

116


Networking with local leaders andopinion-makers

Organize a system (meetings, letters, telephone contact) of keepinglocal leaders and opinion-makers informed about the conservationinitiative. Seek their input and advice as appropriate. This will reducethe possibility that they will resent the conservation initiative and usetheir influence to undermine its credibility.

Make sure that the individuals and organizations selected for network-ing are those which have the support of the local community. In someareas established traditional organizations may be more appropriatethan new organizations with less credibility and relevance to localcommunities. In other areas the opposite may be true. There may alsobe conflicts of power between the old and new with each trying toestablish or retain its power base. Consult with local people beforeassuming which organizations have the most relevance and usefulnessto the management and implementation of the initiative. Strive toremain outside local power struggles.


See Question 3.2.5, Volume 1; Concept File 4.3 (Local institutions forresource management), Volume 2; and Example 55a in Section 6,Volume 2.


117


GeneralReferences

Agarwal, A. and S. Narain, Towards Green Villages: A Strategy forEnvironmentally-sound and Participatory Rural Development, Centrefor Science and Environment, New Delhi, 1989.

Amend, S. and T. Amend, National Parks Without People? The SouthAmerican Experience, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1995 (also availablein Spanish: ?Espacios sin Habitantes? Parques Nacionales de Américadel Sur, IUCN Gland (Switzerland) and Nueva Sociedad, Caracas,1992).

Anderson, K. and R. Blackhurst (eds.), The Greening of World TradeIssues, Harvester/Wheatsheaf, New York, 1992.

Asian Development Bank, Guidelines for Social Analysis of Develop-ment Projects, 1991.

Banuri, T., Hyden, G., Juma, C. and M. Rivera, Sustainable HumanDevelopment, UNDP, New York, 1994.

Banuri, T. and J. Holmberg, Governance for Sustainable Development:A Southern Perspective, IIED (International Institute for Environmentand Development), London, 1992.

Barzetti, V. and Y. Rovinski (eds.), Toward a Green Central America:Integrating Conservation and Development, Kumarian Press, WestHartford (Connecticut), 1992.

Barzetti, V. (ed.), Parks and Progress, IUCN and Inter-America Devel-opment Bank, Washington D.C., 1993.

Bass, S., Dalai-Clayton, B. and J. Pretty, Participation in Strategies forSustainable Development, IIED, Environmental Planning Issues No.7,London, 1995.

Berger, P. L., Pyramids of Sacrifice: Political Ethics and Social Change,Anchor Press, New York, 1974.

Berkes, F. (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development, Belhaven Press, London, 1989.

Biodiversity Conservation Network, Studying the Social Dimensions ofBiodiversity Conservation: Strategies, Approaches, Methods, and Re-sources, manuscript draft, 1996.

Braatz, G., Davis, G., Sheen, S and R. Rees, Conserving BiologicalDiversity: A Strategy for Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region,Technical Paper No. 193, World Bank, Washington D.C., 1992.

Bromley, D. W. and M. M. Cernea, The Management of Common Prop-erty Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies,World Bank Discussion Paper 57, The World Bank, Washington D.C.,1989.

Bromley, D. W., Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice andPolicy, ICS (Institute for Contemporary Studies) Press, San Francisco,1992.

Brown, M. and J. McGann (eds.), A Guide to Strenthening Non-govern-mental Organization Effectiveness in Natural Resource Management,PVO-NGO/NRMS Project with USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.,1996.

Brown, M. and B. Wyckoff-Baird, Designing Integrated Conservationand Development Projects, Biodiversity Support Program, CorporatePress, Landover (Maryland), 1994.

118

General References

Bruce, J. W., Legal Bases for the Management of Forests Resources asCommon Property, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1996 (forthcom-ing).

Carbale, B., Rodriguez, J. and A. Salas, Private Investment as a Mecha-nism for Sustainable Forest Development in the Americas, World Re-sources Institute, Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarolloand IUCN, San Pedro Sula (Honduras), 1995.

CEBSE/CANARI, La Participación Comunitaria en la GestiónAmbiental y el Co-manejo en la República Dominicana, CEBSE, SantoDomingo and CANARI, St. Lucia, 1994.

Centre for Science and Environment, Protection of Nature Parks: WhoseBusiness?, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, 1996.

Cernea, M. M., Putting People First, World Bank and Oxford UniversityPress, New York, 1985.

Cernea, M. M., Involuntary Resettlement in Development Projects:Policy Guidelines in World Bank-financed Projects, World Bank Techni-cal Paper 80, Washington D.C., 1988.

Cernea, M. M., Using Knowledge from Social Science in DevelopmentProjects, World Bank Discussion Papers 114, Washington D.C., 1991.

Chambers, R., Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman,London, 1983.

Chapin, M., Mesoamérica, Centro de Investigaciones Regionales deMesoamérica y Plumsock Mesoamerican Studies, Vol. 16, issue 29,Guatemala, 1995.

Clay, J. W., Generating Income and Conserving Resources: 20 LessonsFrom the Field, WWF (World Wildlife Fund), Gland (Switzerland),1996.

Dasmann, R. R, "The relationship between protected areas and indig-enous peoples" in McNeely, J. and K. Miller (eds), Proceedings of theWorld Congress in National Parks, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1983.

Davidson, J. and Myers, D. with M. Chakraborty, No Time to Waste:Poverty and the Global Environment, Oxfam, Wiltshire (UK), 1992.

Diegues, A. C, O Mito Moderno da Natureza Intocada, NUPAUB -Universidade de São Paolo, Sao Paolo, 1994.

Drijver, C, People's Participation in Environmental Projects in Develop-ing Countries, IIED, Dryland Networks Programme Paper No. 17,Centre for Environmental Studies, Leiden (The Netherlands), 1990.

Durning, A. B., Action at the Grassroots: Fighting Poverty and Environ-mental Decline, Worldwatch Paper 88, Washington D.C., 1989.

Fisher, R. J., Collaborative Management of Forests for Conservation andDevelopment, Issues in Forest Conservation Series, IUCN and WWF,September 1995.

Forest, Trees and People Newsletter, Quarterly Newsletter from the FTPProgramme networking activities.

Franke, R. W and B. H. Chasin, Seeds of Famine: Ecological Destruc-tion and the Development Dilemma in the West African Sahel, AllanHeld Publishers, Montclair (New Jersey), 1980.

119


Friedmann, J. and H. Rangan (eds.), In Defense of Livelihood: Com-parative Studies on Environmental Action, Kumarian Press, WestHartford (Connecticut), 1993.

Geoghegan, T. and V. Barzetti (eds.), Protected Areas and CommunityManagement, Paper No. 1 in the Series 'Community and The Environ-ment - Lessons from the Caribbean' by the Panos Institute and theCaribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARD, Washington D.C.,1992.

Ghai, D. and J. M. Vivian (eds.), Grassroots Environmental Action:People's Participation in Sustainable Development, Routledge, London,1992.

Gilmour, D. A. and R. J. Fisher, Villagers, Forests and Foresters,Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu, 1991.

Grassroots Development, Journal of the Inter-American Foundation.

Hannah, L., African People, African Parks: An Evaluation of Develop-ment Initiatives as a Means of Improving Protected Area Conservationin Africa, USAID, Biodiversity Support Program and ConservationInternational, Washington D.C., 1992.

Harrison, P., The Third Revolution: Environment, Population and aSustainable World, Tauris, London, 1992.

Hoefsloot, H. and G. Onyango, "Seeking new approaches to forestconservation: Mount Elgon National Park", SWARA, Sept-Oct 1995.

IIED, Whose Eden?: An Overview of Community Approaches to WildlifeManagement, Russel Press, Nottingham (UK), 1994.

ILEIA Newsletter, Publication of the Information Centre for Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA) in Leusden (TheNetherlands).

Inglis, J. T., Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases,International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge, IDRC(International Development Research Centre), Ottawa, 1993.

IUCN, World Conservation, Quarterly Journal from IUCN, Gland(Switzerland).

IUCN/UNEP/WWF, Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for SustainableLiving, Gland (Switzerland), 1991.

IUCN, Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, IUCNand WCMC, Gland (Switzerland), 1994.

IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (CNPPA),Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe, IUCN, Gland(Switzerland), 1994.

IUCN Pakistan, Proceedings of the Karakoram Workshop, Skardu(Pakistan), September 28-29, 1994.

IUCN Uganda, Proceedings of the Workshop on Collaborative Manage-ment of Protected Areas -Exploring the Opportunities in Uganda,IUCN, 1996 (manuscript).

IUCN, Best Practice for Conservation Planning in Rural Areas, IUCN,Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge (UK), 1995.

120

General References

IUED (Institut Universitaire d'Etudes du Développement), Guided'Approches des Institutions Locales (GAIL): Méthodologie d'Étude desActeurs Locaux dans le Monde Rural, Itineraires, Notes et Travaux No.40, Geneva (Switzerland), 1994.

Jackson, B. E. and A. Ugalde (eds.), The Impact of Development andModern Technologies in Third World Health, Studies in Third WorldSocieties, Publication Number 34, College of William and Mary,Williamsburg (Virginia), 1985.

Jodha, N. S., Sustainable Development in Fragile Environments, Envi-ronment and Development Series, Centre for Environment Education,Ahmedabad (India), 1995.

Kemf, E. (ed.), The Law of the Mother, Sierra Club Books, SanFrancisco, 1993.

Kiss, A. (ed.), Living With Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management withLocal Participation in Africa, World Bank Technical Paper 130, AfricanTechnical Department Series, The World Bank, Washington D.C, 1990.

Kitching, G., Development and Under development in Historical Perspec-tive: Populism, Nationalism and Industrialization, Routledge, London,1989.

Kleitz, G., Frontieres des Aires Protégées en Zone Tropicale Humide,GRET, Paris, 1994.

Kothari, A., Singh, N. and S. Suri, People and Protected Areas: TowardsParticipatory Conservation in India, Sage Publications, New Delhi,1996.

Krishna G. and M. Pimbert (eds.), Social Change and Conservation:Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks and ProtectedAreas, UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Develop-ment), Geneva (Switzerland), 1996.

Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation, The View from Airlie,Results from discussions during the Community-based ConservationWorkshop held in Airlie, Virginia, October 17, 1993.

Makombe, K, Sharing the Land, IUCN/ROSA Environmental IssuesSeries, 1, Harare, 1993.

Marks, S., The Imperial Lion: Human Dimensions of Wildlife Manage-ment in Central Africa, Westview Press, Boulder (Colorado), 1994.

Max-Neef, M. A., From the Outside Looking In: Experiences in 'BarefootEconomics', Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Uppsala, 1982.

McCay, B. and J. M. Acheson, The Question of the Commons: TheCulture and Ecology of Communal Resources, The University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, 1987.

McNeely, J., "Assessing methods for setting conservation priorities",IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), March 1996.

McNeely, J., "Common property resource management or governmentownership: improving the conservation of biological resources", Interna-tional Relations, 10 (3), 1991.

McNeely, J. (ed.), Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, IslandPress, Washington D.C., 1995.

121


McNeely, J. and K. Miller (eds), National Parks, Conservation andDevelopment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., 1984.

McNeely, J. and G. Ness, "People, parks, and biodiversity: issues inpopulation-environment dynamics", IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1995.

Miller, K., Balancing the Scales, World Resources Institute, WashingtonD.C., 1996.

Murphree, M. W., Communities as Resource Management Institutions,IIED Gatekeeper Series No. 36, London, 1993.

Ndione, E. S., Dynamique Urbaine d'une Société en Grappe, ENDA,Dakar, 1987.

Oakley, P. et al., Projects with People: The Practice of Participation inRural Development, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1991.

Ostrom, E., Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems,ICS (Institute for Contemporary Studies), San Francisco, 1992.

Pasos, R., Girot, P., Laforge, M. and P. Torrealba with D. Kaimowitz, ElUltimo Despale, FUNDESCA, San Jose (Costa Rica), 1994.

People and the Planet, journal published quarterly by Planet 21 andsupported by IPPF, IUCN, UNFPA and WWF.

Picciotto, R. and R. Weaving, "A new project cycle for the World Bank",Finance and Development, December 1994.

Pimbert, M. P. and J. N. Pretty, Parks, People and Professionals:Putting "Participation" Into Protected Area Management, DiscussionPaper 57, UNRISD-IIED-WWF, Geneva (Switzerland), February 1995.

Poffenberger, M., Joint Management of Forest Land: Experiences fromSouth Asia, Ford Foundation, New Delhi, 1990.

Poffenberger, M. (ed.), Keepers of the Forest, Kumarian Press, WestHartford (Connecticut), 1990.

Poffenberger, M., Grassroots Forest Protection: Eastern Indian Experi-ences, Asia Forest Network, Berkeley (California), 1996.

Poffenberger, M., and B. McGean, Village Voices, Forest Choices: JointForest Management in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,1996.

Poole, P., Indigenous Peoples, Mapping, and Biodiversity Conservation,Biodiversity Support Program and World Wildlife Fund, WashingtonD.C., 1995.

Poore, D. (ed.), Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas, IUCN, Gland(Switzerland) and Cambridge (UK), 1992.

Pye-Smith, C. and G. Borrini Feyerabend with R. Sandbrook, TheWealth of Communities: Stories of Success in Environmental Manage-ment, Earthscan Publications, London, 1994.

Raju, G., Vaghela, R. and M. S. Raju, Development of People's Institu-tions for Management of Forests, VIKSAT, Ahmedabad (India), 1993.

Ralston, L., Anderson, J. and E. Colson, Voluntary Efforts in Decentral-ized Management: Opportunities and Constraints in Rural Develop-ment, Research Series No. 53, Institute of International Studies, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley, 1983.

122

General References

Read, T., Coastal Resource Issues in Papua New Guinea: A Photo-textCollection, Greenpeace, Boulder, 1994.

Read, T. and L. Cortesi, Lessons from a Participatory Workshop,Greenpeace, Boulder, 1995.

Reader, J., Man on Earth, Penguin Books, London, 1990.

Richards, P., Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and FoodProduction in West Africa, Unwyn Hyman, London, 1985.

Roseland, M., Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book forMunicipal and Local Governments, National Round Table on the Envi-ronment and the Economy, Ottawa, 1992.

Ruiz, J. and R. Pinzón, Reservas Extractivistas, IUCN, Gland (Switzer-land), 1995.

Russell, D., Theory and Practice in Sustainability and SustainableDevelopment, U. S. Agency for International Development (Center forDevelopment Information and Evaluation), Washington D.C., 1995.

Sarkar, S., Singh, N., Suri, S., and A. Kothari, Joint Management ofProtected Areas in India, Workshop Report, Indian Institute of PublicAdministration, New Delhi, 1995.

Saunier, R. E. and R. A. Meganck (eds.), Conservation of Biodiversityand the New Regional Planning, Organization of American States,Washington and IUCN, Gland (Switzerland), 1995.

Schoeffel, P., "Cultural and institutional issues in the appraisal ofprojects in developing countries: South Pacific water resources", ProjectAppraisal, Vol. 10, No. 3, September 1995.

Scoones, I. and J. Thompson (eds.), Beyond Farmer First: Rural People'sKnowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, IntermediateTechnology Publications, London, 1994.

Slocombe, S., Roelof, J. K., Cheyne, L. C, Noalani Terry, S. and S. denOuden, What Works: An annotated bibliography of case studies ofsustainable development, IUCN-CESP Working Paper No. 5, Interna-tional Center for the Environment and Public Policy, Sacramento(California), 1993.

Society for the Promotion of Wasteland Development (SPWD), JointForest Management: Concepts and Opportunities, SPWD, New Delhi,1992.

Solis, V., Cabrera, J. and T. Tuomasjukka, Biodiversidad: SuTratamiento en Centroamérica, Fundación Ambio, San José (CostaRica), 1995.

Stahl, M., Constraints to Environmental Rehabilitation Through Peo-ple's Participation in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands, DiscussionPaper 13, UNRISD, Geneva (Switzerland), 1990.

Steiner, A. and E. Rihoy, "The commons without the tragedy?", back-ground paper for the 1995 Regional Conference of the Natural ResourceManagement Programme, USAID, Malawi, 1995.

Stiefel, M. and M. Wolfe, A Voice for the Excluded. Popular Participa-tion in Development: Utopia or Necessity?, Zed Books, London andUNRISD, Geneva (Switzerland), 1994.

123


UNESCO, Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the StatutoryFramework of the World Network, UNESCO, Paris, 1996.

UN (United Nations), Population, Environment and Development,Proceedings of the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Popula-tion, Environment and Development, United Nations Headquarter, 20-24 January 1992, United Nations, New York, 1994.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), Conserving Indig-enous Knowledge, UNDP, New York, 1994.

Uphoff, N., Local Institutional Development: An Analytical Sourcebookwith Cases, Kumarian Press, West Hartford (Connecticut), 1986.

Ventocilla, J., "Kuna Indians and the Conservation of the Environment"Mesoamérica, Vol. 16, issue 29, Centro de Investigaciones Regionales deMesoamérica, Guatemala, 1995.

Weber, J., "L'occupation humaine des Aires protegees a Madagascar:diagnostic et éléments pour une gestion viable", Natures, Sciences,Sociétés, 3, Vol. 2: 157-164, 1995.

Wells, M., Brandon, K. and L. Hannah, People and Parks: LinkingProtected Area Management with Local Communities, World Bank,WWF and USAID, Washington D.C., 1992.

West, P. C. and S. R. Brechin, Resident Peoples and National Parks,University of Arizona Press, Tucson (Arizona), 1991.

Western D., and R. M. Wright (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectivesin Community-based Conservation, Island Press, Washington D.C.,1995.

White, A. T., Zeitlin H. L., Renard, Y. and L. Cortesi, Collaborative andCommunity Based Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons from Experi-ence, Kumarian Press, West Hartford (Connecticut), 1994.

Wild, R. G. and J. Mutebi, Conservation Through Community Use,UNESCO, 1996 (in press).

Wolfson, M., Community Action for Family Planning: A Comparison ofSix Project Experiences, OECD, Paris, 1987.

124

Institutional partnersInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), SocialPolicy Group

Biodiversity Support Program (BSP), a USAID funded consortium ofthe WWF, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute

The World Bank, Social Policy and Resettlement Division

PVO-NGO/NRMS Project (managed by World Learning, CARE andWWF)

World Wildlife Fund, United States (WWF-US), Social Science andEconomic Programme

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)

Intercooperation, Switzerland

Project coordinating committeeJanis Alcorn, Director, Asia and Pacific, BSP

Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Head, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Michael Brown, Director, PVO-NGO/NRMS ProjectGloria Davis, Chief, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, The WorldBank

John Krijnen, Intercooperation

Patricia Larson, Director, Social Science and Economic Programme,WWF-US

Eva Wollenberg, Senior Scientist, CIFOR

Consultants and internsDianne Buchan, New Zealand

Roger Ebner, Switzerland

Sally Jeanrenaud, Switzerland

Peter-John Meynell, UK

Paul Sochaczewski, Switzerland

Patrizio Warren, Italy

Layout, graphic work and publishing supportAppi S.à r.L, Switzerland

Dhunmai Cowasjee, IUCN Pakistan

Patricia Halladay, Canada

Saneeya Hussein, IUCN Pakistan

Ajmal Malik, Intercooperation Pakistan

Fabrizio Prati, Switzerland

Morag White, IUCN

Computer supportDan Hinckley, IUCN

Fayez Mikhail, IUCN

125

Contributors


Secretariat SupportSusan Broomfield, Social Policy Group, IUCN

James-Christopher Miller, BSP

Nathalie Pannetier, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Participants of start-up workshop at IUCNCarmen Aalbers, International Labour Organization

Solon Barraclough, United Nations Research Institute for SocialDevelopment

Jill Blockhus, Forestry Conservation Programme, IUCN

Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Montserrat Carbonell, RAMSAR Bureau

Hin Keong Chen, Asia and Pacific Affairs, IUCN

Charles Crothers, University of Kent, Australia

Peter Crowley, International Save the Children Alliance

Khrisna Ghimire, United Nations Research Institute for SocialDevelopment

Donald Gilmour, Forest Conservation Programme, IUCN

Paddy Gresham, Environmental Assessment Services, IUCN

Meghan Golay, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Peter Hislaire, Africa Desk, IUCN

Mark Hufty, Institut Unversitaire d'Etudes du Développement, Geneva

Sally Jeanrenaud, Consultant, Switzerland

John Krijnen, Intercooperation, Switzerland

Kevin Lyonette, Director Government Aid Agencies Relations,WWF International

Gayl Ness, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Raewyn Peart, University of Kent, Australia

Maria Petrone-Halle, Medecins sans Frontières, Switzerland

Pedro Rosabal, Protected Areas Programme, IUCN

Per Rydèn, Acting Assistant Director General, IUCN

Patrizio Warren, Consultant, Italy

Contributors of case study material/commentsCarmen Aalbers, International Labour Organization

H. R. Akanda, Local Government Engineering Department, Dhaka,Bangladesh

Janis Alcorn, BSP

Kirsten Ewers Andersen, Project RAMBOLL, Denmark

Ivannia Ayales, Consultant, Costa Rica

Siddharta Bajracharya, Annapurna Conservation Area Project, Nepal

Demba Baldé, Senegal Office, IUCN

Tom Barton, Consultant, Uganda

Katrina Brandon, Consultant, USA

Michael Brown, PVO-NGO/NRMS Project

126

Contributors

John Butler, WWF US

Gabriel Campbell, The Mountain Institute, USA

Paul Chatterton, South Pacific Program, WWF

Carol Colfer, Consultant, CIFORMaria (Chona) Cruz, Social Policy and Resettlement Division,The World Bank

Dulan de Silva, Pakistan Office, IUCN

Carole Donaldson, Landcare, New Zealand

Charles Doumenge, Central Africa Office, IUCN

Eduardo Fernandez, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Gonzalo Flores, PROBONA, Bolivia

Pascal Girot, University of San Jose, Costa Rica

Markus Gottsbacher, International Labour Organization

Peter Hislaire, Regional Support Group, IUCN

Hartmut Holzknecht, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,Australia

Ashish Kothari, Indian Institute of Public Administration, India

John Krijnen, Intercooperation

Patricia Larson, WWF-US

Juan Mayr, Fundacion Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia

Jeffrey McNeely, Biodiversity Program, IUCN

Katherine McPhail, Social Policy and Resettlement Division,The World Bank

Alice Mogwe, DITSHWANELO, Botswana

James Murombedzi, Center for Applied Social Sciences, University ofZimbabwe

Marshall Murphree, Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University ofZimbabwe

Jackson Mutebi, CARE, Uganda

Samuel-Alain Nguiffo, Centre pour l'Environement et leDéveloppement, Cameroon

Aijaz Nizamani, Pakistan Office, IUCN

Antonio Perez, Consultant, Spain

Pauline Peters, Yale University, USA

Adrian Phillips, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas,IUCN

Lynelle Preston, The Mountain Institute

Esther Prieto, Centro de Estudios Humanitarios, Paraguay

Muhammad Rafiq, Pakistan Office, IUCN

Jean-Richard Rakotondrasoloarimanana, COMODE, Madagascar

Elizabeth Reichel, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

Catherine Roffet, Consultant, France

Per Ryden, acting Asst. Director General Conservation Policy, IUCN

Lea Scherl, Consultant, Nairobi

Maria Cristina Serje de la Ossa, ECOFONDO, Colombia

Evelyn Silva, Fundación Ecotropica, Costa Rica

127


Peter Valentine, James Cook University, Australia

Michael Vardon, Wildlife Management International, Australia

Katherine Warner, RECOFTC, Thailand

Grahame Webb, Wildlife Management International, Australia

Eva Wollenberg, CIFOR

Contributors of Concept FilesAnil Agarwal, Director, Centre for Science and Environment, India

Janis Alcorn, Director, Asia and Pacific, BSP

Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Head, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Michael Brown, Director, PVO-NGO/NRMS Project

Gerardo Budowski, Professor, University of Peace, Costa Rica

Michael Cernea, Senior Advisor for Social Policy and Sociology,The World Bank

Carol Colfer, Consultant, CIFOR

Alex de Sherbinin, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Bob Fisher, Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, University of WestSydney, Australia

Donald Gilmour, Head of Forest Conservation, IUCN

Pascal Girot, Professor, University of Costa Rica

Roy Hagen, Shapeaurouge, Minnesota (USA)

Narpat Jodha, National Resource Management Specialist, Social Policyand Resettlement Division, The World Bank

Aban Marker Kabraji, Country Representative, Pakistan Office, IUCN

Ashish Kothari, Senior Lecturer, Indian Institute of PublicAdministration, India

Larry Kohler, Focal Point for Environment and Social Development,ILO

Connie Lewis, Associate Director, The Keystone Centre, Colorado (USA)

Rowan Martin, Chair, IUCN Africa Sustainable Use Initiative,Zimbabwe

Jeffrey McNeely, Chief Scientist and Head of Biodiversity ConservationGroup, IUCN

Marshall Murphree, Director, Centre for Applied Social Sciences,University of Zimbabwe

Gayl Ness, Social Policy Group, IUCN

Elinor Ostrom, Co-director, Workshop on Political Theory and PolicyAnalysis, Indiana University, (USA)

Mark Poffenberger, Asia Forest Network

Yves Renard, Executive Director, Caribbean Natural ResourcesInstitute

Ricardo Ramirez, Coordinator, Information and Communication, ILEIA,The Netherlands

Martha Rojas, Biodiversity Conservation Group, IUCN

Dianne Russell, Biodiversity Conservation Network, The Philippines

Paul Sochaczewski, Consultant, Switzerland

128

Contributors

Barry Spergel, Legal Advisor for Conservation Finance, WWF-US

Peter Valentine, Senior Lecturer Tropical Environment Studies, JamesCook University, Australia

Frank Vorhies, Biodiversity Conservation Group, IUCN

Anoja Wickramasinghe, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Eva Wollenberg, Senior Scientist, CIFOR

Barbara Wyckoff-Baird, WWF, Namibia

Contributors of supplementary material and adviceLorena Aguilar Revelo, IUCN-ORMA, Costa Rica

Yati Bun, FSP, Papua New Guinea

Daniele Cassin, EDEX, Italy

Christian Châtelain, Conkouati Project, IUCN Congo

Moreno Chiovoloni, Consultant, Rome

Marcus Colchester, World Rainforest Movement, England

Lafcadio Cortesi, Greenpeace, USA

Sandy Davis, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, The World Bank

Nelson Dias, Guinea-Bissau Office, IUCN

Biksham Gujja, WWF, Switzerland

Ursula Hiltbrunner, Membership Unit, IUCN

Henk Hoefsloot, Mt Elgon Project, IUCN Uganda

Chris Horill, IUCN Tanga Project, Tanzania

Ruud Jansen, Botswana Office, IUCN

Elizabeth Kemf, WWF International

Nancy MacPherson, Environmental Strategy Group, IUCN

Rob Monro, Zimtrust, Zimbabwe

Michel Pimbert, WWF Switzerland

Gert Polet, Nigeria Office, IUCN

Tom Price, Niger Office, IUCN

Charlie Pye-Smith, Journalist, United Kingdom

Jorge Rodriguez, Consejo Centroamericano de Bosques y ÁreaProtegidas, Costa Rica

Alberto Salas, IUCN-ORMA, Costa Rica

Richard Sandbrook, IIED, UK

Neena Singh, Centre for Science and the Environment, India

Vivienne Solis, IUCN-ORMA Costa Rica

Achim Steiner, Washington Office, IUCN

Mario Tapia, University of Lima, Peru

Ibrahim Thiaw, Regional Support Group, IUCN

Cecile Thiery, Information Management Group, IUCN

Jim Thorsell, World Heritage Programme, IUCN

129

Beyond FencesEdited by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend with Dianne Buchan. Acknowledgments This...

Documents

Transcript of Beyond FencesEdited by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend with Dianne Buchan. Acknowledgments This...